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.
Breastfeeding in restaurants
- Thread starter Rich1988
- Start date
- Status
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.
Weak minded weirdos iyam.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
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'
Associate
- Joined
- 11 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 1,176
- Location
- by the sea
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.
Yes, probably.
Will it thrive? Will it be happy? Contented? Tolerable company in Claridges?
That's more doubtful.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Have you been asked to leave a business before or know of anyone it has happened to?
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.
I remember these same discussions amongst parents in the 90s. Though it wasn't online. You'd think it was a new thing.
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.
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.
It has hunger pains and cries as a result, do you take pleasure in making a baby cry?
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.
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 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:
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
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!
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!
And in such a case, ignoring restrictions would be irresponsible.
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.
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 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.
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.
Since nobody has done that, I'll refer you to yourself:
One of the best posts of the thread
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
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!!!!!!!!!
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!!!!!!!!!
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 32,689
- Location
- Rutland
Baby changing areas are not intended for breast feeding. Would you eat your dinner in the bog?
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