Breastfeeding in restaurants

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

No because not feeding a baby when it wants feeding is hurting it controling when you urinate doesn't, see how easy it is to think logically.
 
[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

I have absolutely no idea what any of that means, you said that you need to do it immediately to sustain life - is this the case?

If it is the case then I cannot see how anyone can object.

However now you mention 'benefits' - before it was 'sustain life' :confused:
 
Will a baby survive if waiting 10/15minutes or an hour to feed?
Yes, probably.
Will it thrive? Will it be happy? Contented? Tolerable company in Claridges?
That's more doubtful.
 
Will a baby survive if waiting 10/15minutes or an hour to feed?
Yes, probably.
Will it thrive? Will it be happy? Contented? Tolerable company in Claridges?
That's more doubtful.

You could say the same about a being caught-out somewhere with your baby and not being able to change their nappy. What if you were unable to produce?

Will it be happy? Contented? Tolerable company?

It's doubtful.
 
Almost everyone in this culture has been socialised to regard public nudity as a taboo in almost all contexts.

I remember these same discussions amongst parents in the 90s. Though it wasn't online. You'd think it was a new thing.

 
No because not feeding a baby when it wants feeding is hurting it controling when you urinate doesn't, see how easy it is to think logically.

How is it hurting it? Babies have evolved to be fat for a reason, it allows them to go without food for an hour.
 
I'm inclined to agree with goldilocks here. If a baby needs food then it needs food. You can't not feed a child for an hour or so just because you are out at a restaurant or any other public place, or you'd never get out of the house. Also, if you don't feed the baby it cries, which is much more likely to offend a group of people than a discretely fed baby.

Certainly there is an understanding that you maintain some degree of modesty where possible, but frankly I would assume that most mums aren't particularly interested in everyone seeing their boob anyway.

Should a restaurant be allowed to request a woman to feed elsewhere? I can't really construct an argument that really definitively swings either way for me. I personally think women should be able to breastfeed without interruption for the baby's sake, but that's not particularly logic driven in terms of arguments.
 
Sorry Angilion, where have I suggested unrestricted breastfeeding?

In your opposition in this thread to restrictions on breastfeeding in public.

I'm advocating responsibility and modesty. They are in themselves restrictions. I'm against militant mothers, not someone discretely trying to feed their child.
Restrictions that a person can freely set for themself are not really restrictions, since any person can set them to anything.

Take one of your own examples - nudism. There are nudists who see nothing irresponsible or immodest in strolling around town in the nude. If the relevant criterion is self-assessment of responsibility and modesty, they should have a right to do so in public and to do so in any business premises with complete disregard for any dress code or any request from the business owner or manager to do anything to conform to what anyone sees as appropriate behaviour for that premises, even the owner.

How would you propose to deal with people who reject your idea of what constitutes responsibility and modesty? Or people who reject the idea that those are the relevant criteria for what should and shouldn't be allowed in public?

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.
The examples you used illustrate that nudity is either forbidden in public or extremely strongly restricted in public, allowed only in small areas set aside for that purpose, regardless of whether or not the nude person thinks it's sexual. So they oppose your position rather than supporting it.
 
Last edited:
There seems to be an awful lot of missing-the-blasted-point in this thread.

What Claridges did is illegal: "Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding."

Asking a woman to cover her baby's head while it feeds is discriminatory unless the same is asked of women simply holding a baby.

Breast-feeding women do not generally "get their breasts out". The women in question lifted her shirt and bra cup on one side and the baby immediately then covered the breast in question. There is no suggestion here that her breasts were visible to any other diners except for a second or two, max.

The issue here is that somebody either acted to prevent a possible complaint or acted as a result of a complaint. Either way, the correct response is to remind any complainant that they do not have to look, that the woman is legally entitled to do what they are doing and to shut the hell up.

And if we're all supposed to be considerate of someone else being offended, I am offended at the git being offended by a baby being fed with a live breast. So the git should change his behaviour to avoid causing me offense.

And all of you comparing breast-feeding to excretion or fornication or masturbation in public clearly have never been parents and are being genuinely puerile. Grow up!
 
In your opposition in this thread to restrictions on breastfeeding in public.

Restrictions that a person can freely set for themself are not really restrictions, since any person can set them to anything.

And in such a case, ignoring restrictions would be irresponsible.

Take one of your own examples - nudism. There are nudists who see nothing irresponsible or immodest in strolling around town in the nude. If the relevant criterion is self-assessment of responsibility and modesty, they should have a right to do so in public and to do so in any business premises with complete disregard for any dress code or any request from the business owner or manager to do anything to conform to what anyone sees as appropriate behaviour for that premises, even the owner.

If someone were to behave in such a manner despite the obvious antagonism it would cause, they are most certainly not being responsible. Self-assessment is nothing without being tapered by responsibility. If they know it will cause concern yet do it anyway they are being irresponsible.

How would you propose to deal with people who reject your idea of what constitutes responsibility and modesty? Or people who reject the idea that those are the relevant criteria for what should and shouldn't be allowed in public?

It's not just about subjective value judgements. The concerns of the general public -- as stupid as they sometimes are -- need to be considered. It's part of the deal of living within a society. Someone may not have issues with modesty and are in-fact very comfortable with their own nudity. However, they will also be aware that other people will find it distasteful, inappropriate, or garish. The golden rule applies, be considerate and don't be a nobber. Behaving in spite of, is not considerate but selfish.

The example you used illustrate that nudity is either forbidden in public or extremely strongly restricted in public, allowed only in small areas set aside for that purpose, regardless of whether or not the nude person thinks it's sexual. So they oppose your position rather than supporting it.

The only point I was making with nudism was that sexualisation is subjective within the social dynamic. There are contexts where the naked form is made non-sexual. And so with breastfeeding: breastfeeding due to the implied function is a non-sexual act (ignoring Freudianisms) therefore the Victorian morality aspect need not apply.

But, the responsibility thing comes back in when we realise that it can and will cause discomfort in others because of the deeply engrained societal values of modesty and the fact that some people cannot completely remove the sexualised aspect of the naked breast which in turn also causes discomfort.
 
There seems to be an awful lot of missing-the-blasted-point in this thread.

What Claridges did is illegal: "Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding."

Asking a woman to cover her baby's head while it feeds is discriminatory unless the same is asked of women simply holding a baby.

That's a different point of view. Would you regard it as OK for a restaurant to require any babies brought on to the premises to be concealed from sight at all times?

Asking a person to wear clothes in a restaurant is discriminatory. Asking anyone to conform to any rules is discriminatory. The question should be whether it's reasonable, not whether it meets a definition of a word in a law that shouldn't be (and hopefully isn't) applied in that way.

And all of you comparing breast-feeding to excretion or fornication or masturbation in public clearly have never been parents and are being genuinely puerile. Grow up!

Since nobody has done that, I'll refer you to yourself:

There seems to be an awful lot of missing-the-blasted-point in this thread.
 
There seems to be an awful lot of missing-the-blasted-point in this thread.

What Claridges did is illegal: "Service providers must not discriminate, harass or victimise a woman because she is breastfeeding."

Asking a woman to cover her baby's head while it feeds is discriminatory unless the same is asked of women simply holding a baby.

Breast-feeding women do not generally "get their breasts out". The women in question lifted her shirt and bra cup on one side and the baby immediately then covered the breast in question. There is no suggestion here that her breasts were visible to any other diners except for a second or two, max.

The issue here is that somebody either acted to prevent a possible complaint or acted as a result of a complaint. Either way, the correct response is to remind any complainant that they do not have to look, that the woman is legally entitled to do what they are doing and to shut the hell up.

And if we're all supposed to be considerate of someone else being offended, I am offended at the git being offended by a baby being fed with a live breast. So the git should change his behaviour to avoid causing me offense.

And all of you comparing breast-feeding to excretion or fornication or masturbation in public clearly have never been parents and are being genuinely puerile. Grow up!

One of the best posts of the thread
 
Angilion, are you being serious? If a restaurant had a rule that said all customers had to wear clothes, how many people would not go there? If a restaurant said no-one could wear clothes, how many would go there?

Saying a women who is breast-feeding must cover up, when no-one else is being asked to do so is by definition "discriminatory". What part of the word do you not understand?

As for saying no-one has compared breast-feeding to excretion or fornication etc. have you read this thread? There are countless posts saying that if it's OK to breast-feed because it's natural, why isn't it OK to take a dump at the table? Is that not a comparison? Is it even vaguely comparable? If you think it is, then yes, you should grow up.

An no, I don't think I'm missing the point at all. She should be allowed to breast-feed in a restaurant as specified by law!!!!!!!!!
 
The posts about taking a dump are simply pointing out the utter nonsense that is the "it's natural so it's ok" argument, not trying to claim they are equivalent.
 
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?

Baby changing areas are not intended for breast feeding. Would you eat your dinner in the bog?
 
Boobs are for breastfeeding, boobs are made of flesh, the same flesh as in arms and legs, why are boobs offensive or more offensive than any other body part?

Not offensive, highly sexualised in the modern day, whether thats wrong or right its the way it is. Why is a penis more offensive than any other piece of flesh by that logic?

again, not trying to argue a point I just think covering up is more courtesy than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom