Breastfeeding in restaurants

Status
Not open for further replies.
nothing stops breast feeding in the baby changing areas.
it's not discrimination asking people to be discreet by covering up with a huge paper napkin either.
why make a big deal about it?
 
Stretch said:
Do the same rules also apply to penis's.. stupid?
Click to expand...

Not if you're trying to feed babies from your penis. And that will end up with you in jail and on a list. And not Santa's naughty one.

While the "it's natural" argument is stupid. So is the "so is ******* / ****ing / ********" one as a retort.

This whole thread has devolved into I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE YELLING ABOUT and LOUD NOISES!
 
For some reason you're mininterpretating my post Angilion. Maybe that's my fault. Each of those situations have their own settings and space, hence it's contextual. I'm not assuming that any of them are being done within a neutral public setting. If they were then that would change the point of my post and you are right, restrictions come in to play but that's part of the 'responsibility' thing I mentioned earlier.

Nudism for example happens in specific locations, as does the art-class and the medicine. It wouldn't be welcome for someone to give a breast-examination in the high-street for example. A nude-model art-class in the middle of Primark would also be jarring although somewhat amusing.

As for what discretion is, see my earlier posts. It's just being considerate, i.e. not flopping boobs out wholesale but keeping some modesty. That said, I've never experienced a militant mother who's determined to give a strip-show to prove a point. Returning to the Claridge's incident, as I said earlier: asking her to cover up was wrong. She was being modest and completely inoffensive so let her get on with it.
 
Last edited:
Minstadave said:
This is exactly what the chap I was replying to was suggesting, letting restaurants decide whether they would allow breast feeding or not. [..]
Click to expand...

No, it wasn't.

These three things are very different, especially the first two:

1) Not allowing people to breastfeed in your restaurant.

2) Not allowing anyone who has ever breastfed anywhere at any time into your restaurant.

3) Not allowing anyone who was born with the potential to possibly be able to breastfeed into your restaurant.

Barring people on the basis of the colour of their skin would be comparable to (3). It's fundamentally different to (1). Banning an action in your restaurant is fundamentally different to banning all people born into any particular "race".
 
Chuk_Chuk said:
To all those saying that they are okay with a women breastfeeding in public. What if you were seated in a seat that forced/made you watch as she was breastfeeding would you still be okay with it?
Click to expand...

Yup, I genuinely can't see the problem, can someone attempt to explain what the problem is?
 
Longbow said:
And the time and place to have a pee is when I need a pee.

See how easy it is to make these meaningless statements?
Click to expand...

The time to have a pee is when you need a pee, the place isn't in the middle of a restaurant due to the obvious health implications. Breastfeeding doesn't have the same health implications so I don't really see why it would be a problem?
 
Nix said:
For some reason you're mininterpretating my post Angilion. Maybe that's my fault. Each of those situations have their own settings and space, hence it's contextual. I'm not assuming that any of them are being done within a neutral public setting. If they were then that would change the point of my post and you are right, restrictions come in to play but that's part of the 'responsibility' thing I mentioned earlier.
Click to expand...

All of the examples you give are of nudity being allowed in extremely restricted contexts. Not only do they not support the idea that breastfeeding should be allowed without restrictions in public, they are an argument against it because they serve as precedent for those restrictions. You were talking about asexual nudity with a function being an exception and using that line of argument to support unrestricted public breastfeeding, but your own examples show that it isn't an exception. It's still either forbidden or extremely strongly restricted in public.

The people you are disagreeing with are making exactly the same point that you're making - that some things are appropriate in some settings and inappropriate in others. They include breastfeeding in that and the examples you're giving support their position, not yours.

[..] A nude-model art-class in the middle of Primark would also be jarring although somewhat amusing.
Click to expand...

I'd laugh because of the incongruity.

Given the context, would the paintings or drawings have to fall apart in a couple of months? :)

As for what discretion is, see my earlier posts. It's just being considerate, i.e. not flopping boobs out wholesale but keeping some modesty. That said, I've never experienced a militant mother who's determined to give a strip-show to prove a point. Returning to the Claridge's incident, as I said earlier: asking her to cover up was wrong. She was being modest and completely inoffensive so let her get on with it.
Click to expand...
I would regard someone strolling down the street in the nude as being completely inoffensive. Why shouldn't it be allowed, since I say it should be?

Claridge's was requesting that a customer conformed to their ideas regarding modesty and decorum while eating in their restaurant. Why shouldn't they be allowed to apply their own criteria for polite behaviour in their own restaurant?
 
Last edited:
I'm currently breastfeeding my 20 month old daughter (and will continue to do so until she weans) so yeah, I support public breastfeeding.

The law protects mothers who are legally allowed to breastfeed anywhere they are legally allowed to be. I have fed my daughter in 5* hotel restaurants, a barber shop, pubs, shops, too many places to name.

Would I pee on the floor in those places? No
Would I have sex in them? No

The 'it's all natural' thing doesn't fly with me. There are appropriate times and places for 2/3 of those actions. The other is a biological need that must be met immediately in order to sustain a life.

Claridges evidently have no issue with female nudity (as per the scantily clad celebs we often see gracing their door) rather a policy that discriminates specifically against breastfeeding mothers and their infants - which IS illegal.
I won't be giving them my custom any time soon
 
goldilocks said:
The other is a biological need that must be met immediately in order to sustain a life.
Click to expand...

That's quite a claim. Are you saying that the baby will die if it isn't immediately breast fed? That's certainly what you've said. If this is true then quite honestly I cannot see how anyone can object.
 
Sorry Angilion, where have I suggested unrestricted breastfeeding? I'm advocating responsibility and modesty. They are in themselves restrictions. I'm against militant mothers, not someone discretely trying to feed their child.

The examples I have used were only to illustrate the contextual differences of nudity be that sexual or asexual and how societal context can influence what's deemed to be sexual or not.

A breast feeding mother objectively speaking isn't sexual for the majority of people. Neither is the act in itself. The only sexual aspect is the breast, which relates back to the aforementioned dissonance it can cause in others. Again, without getting Freudian, it's objectively about meeting a child's needs which is the function of a good mother. Breast-feeding is a very intimate thing between a mother and child and for a stranger, ignoring the nudity aspect it can feel like an invasion of that privacy.
 
Depends how it's done, if it's discreet and just simply a woman feeding her child sure go for it knock yourself out, if they're pretty much stripped off with some huge **** on the table when I'm trying to eat my meal then urrr no. I was at the library once and there was a woman who took off her tshirt to frigging feed her child, I did not want to see that.
 
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?
Click to expand...

Well there are gay clubs and men's only clubs and women only nights and so on. Business do have what is called right of admission reserved. Which basically means you accept the rules of the property by entering and not abiding by the rules you could be asked to leave. Any business has an incentive to be as accommodating as they can be. It is a trade off between keeping other customers happy and keeping other customers happy. Often all it needs is for someone to complain it is then up to the business whether they want to act on that complaint. If it was a public area like a train station or a park that i would agree that is uncalled for, but if business is being done where it occurs then they have to put up with being asked to leave if it may offend people from some cultures. If i was eating at a restaurant and someone started breast feeding i would wonder if there was not a better time to do that but would never complain or say anything.

Big department stores must have women wanting to breast feed all the time because of the amount of mothers that go shopping. If it was such a problem then they should accommodate for it voluntarily by putting some couches in a private room with a tv, i just don't think it is a major problem that women are constantly asked to leave business when they breast feed. Maybe i am wrong on that but ive never seen it in person happen.
 
Last edited:
[TW Fox] breastfeeding on demand (also known as cue feeding or demand feeding) is an evidence based but baby led feeding 'schedule' with proven benefits. So in my case it certainly is an imperative to feed as soon as the baby asks for it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom