Just to point out the flaw here: no-one else is exposing part of their anatomy at the dinner-table.
Breastfeeding in restaurants
- Thread starter Rich1988
- Start date
- Status
Just to point out the flaw here: no-one else is exposing part of their anatomy at the dinner-table.
Why? If each individual sets their own restrictions (which has to be the case if other people aren't allowed to do so), then there aren't any restrictions and it can't be irresponsible to ignore them. At most, it's just deciding to change them.
So why doesn't that apply to breastfeeding in public?
Both are examples of harmless things.
Both are examples of things that the person doing them considers inoffensive, modest, responsible, asexual and functional (i.e. all the words you've used).
Both are examples of things that other people might not want to see in some contexts.
If it is illegal to impose any restrictions on doing something, then doing it is entirely just about subjective value judgements. I agree with the paragraph you've written above, but it goes directly against both your position and the law as it currently stands.
Soldato
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 9,223
- Location
- Southampton, hopefully not too hot, or too cold
Yes and here is another...
Try and feed your fresh pee to a baby or anyone against their will, in public like in a restaurant or in private, might possibly get you put on a list you might regret being on.
You're assuming it's completely libertarian. It's not. People are functioning within a society and as such there will be societal restrictions.
In British society, one is an implicit rule regarding modesty and respecting privacy.
As above. It does apply to breastfeeding.
The only addition is that we have a child which cannot comprehend societal expectations nor understand why there are rules. They're just a little bag of flesh with basic needs which demand to be met, and as such I have sympathy for mothers who are only trying to meet those needs.
I still don't see how it goes against my position when it is my position and has been all along. Something has been lost in translation here.
Anyway, you'll have to forgive me if I refrain from posting any more. I've genuinely grown bored of the topic!
Live and let live, but do so responsibly. For me, that's all there is to it.
I don't know. I'm sure there's some market for a nude restaurant. How many customers each restaurant had would no doubt depend on a combination of factors. Cost, quality of food, etc.
How is this relevant to the subject?
The part where you get to make up what it means and ignore other circumstances that meet a definition of the word.
Yes. You clearly haven't, because it's been explained repeatedly and in laborious detail despite the fact that it's very obvious.
The point you are so determined to miss is that something being natural does not mean that should be illegal to restrict when and where it can be done (or even to ban it entirely). The point is a counter-argument to the extremely common usage of "nature" as a superhuman authority to command obedience, silence dissent and forbid evidence, reasoning and rational thought. Providing examples of natural things is not stating that those examples are the same in any way other than being natural. In fact, the point is usually the lack of comparability.
Since the topic is obviously getting in the way of your understanding, I'll use something else to illustrate the difference:
Person A: Animals with 4 legs are dogs!
Person B: Many animals have 4 legs. Cats, for example. Or elephants.
That does not mean that person B is saying that cats and elephants are dogs. Just that they have 4 legs and that, therefore, having 4 legs is not what defines a cat.
Just another question to pose. What age is it acceptable to breastfeed to? and would people be comfortable with a 6/7 year old breastfeeding ? Is there even a law at what age it must be stopped? Im sure I have read things in the past about children of that age being breastfed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
Whoever said it is illegal to impose any restrictions? The law specifies a range of restrictions which are illegal and some which are mandatory.
It is illegal for there to be natural things like strep or ecoli on dining tables and cooking surfaces. Seems reasonable.
It is illegal to specify that an area is for one race only or to specify that it is not for a specific race. Again, hard fought for and seems entirely reasonable.
It is legal to require that visitors should wear particular clothes in an establishment - e.g. ties, head-scarfs, etc. If one doesn't want to abide, one can simply decide not to visit.
I never said that all discrimination is illegal, or that any restriction is illegal. But some discrimination is illegal and some restrictions are illegal. Breast-feeding is one of the restrictions/discriminations which is illegal.
Claridges should be ashamed of themselves, the staff should be advised of their legal obligations and next time some git complains, the staff should advise the complainant of the law.
It is illegal for there to be natural things like strep or ecoli on dining tables and cooking surfaces. Seems reasonable.
It is illegal to specify that an area is for one race only or to specify that it is not for a specific race. Again, hard fought for and seems entirely reasonable.
It is legal to require that visitors should wear particular clothes in an establishment - e.g. ties, head-scarfs, etc. If one doesn't want to abide, one can simply decide not to visit.
I never said that all discrimination is illegal, or that any restriction is illegal. But some discrimination is illegal and some restrictions are illegal. Breast-feeding is one of the restrictions/discriminations which is illegal.
Claridges should be ashamed of themselves, the staff should be advised of their legal obligations and next time some git complains, the staff should advise the complainant of the law.
Strawman much.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
Really? Do you wear gloves and a complete facemask? How do you get the food in your mouth?
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
Angilion, you're very good at selective quoting and then stating someone else's argument in a way which is not what was said. Are you a politician?
He means a breasts / genitalia.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
What do breasts have to do with genitalia?
And I regret to say I have seen many men display their breasts in public and in restaurants.
And I regret to say I have seen many men display their breasts in public and in restaurants.
Only if they are allowed and you're arguing against them being allowed in the case of breastfeeding because you're arguing against anyone else being allowed to place restrictions on when, where and how a person does it.
But it doesn't. That's the whole point of it - to make any restrictions not just socially unacceptable but illegal. Lobbyists have had a lot of success in both areas, but more so in the law.
Who doesn't?
Bear in mind that I see nothing wrong in someone walking around absolutely nude in public, let alone breastfeeding indiscreetly (for any definition of "indiscreet").
Feel free to provide some examples to back up your claims. Or not.
Social custom currently considers genitalia and women's breasts to be parts of the body that it is inappropriate to show in public in most contexts.
It doesn't really make any objective sense. Social customs often don't. Which is why, for example, a man's genitals are considered to be vastly more inappropriate than a woman's, with vast differences in the punishment for doing so.
That's just because men's genitals are repulsive. I've spent a lot of time looking at my penis and other penises and studying my scrotum and it and others are not attractive in the slightest, so it's completely understandable why there'd be a social stigma of getting them out in public.
Hell, I've been to plenty of nudist beaches and no matter how many times I go I'm always left thinking "man, evolution just gave up when it got to here". "Oh yeah, you need to pee and cool some bits, here's a hose and a bag".
I am sure this has been covered (no pun intended!) but what is so wrong about helping the woman cover up with a shroud as shown in the picture?
She seemed to immediately presume it was to persecute her and therefore got very upset. In reality, it was most likely to protect the super sensitive, easily offended crowd from seeing a bit of lady flesh.
I think if I was a woman in a public restaurant I would be grateful for something that let me feed my baby even more privately.
They didn't stop her breast feeding, they simply gave her more privacy if anything : /
If however there is a genuine reason why what they gave her actually impeded her ability to safely breastfeed then fair enough but I think once again we just have two parties vying to be the more offended.
She seemed to immediately presume it was to persecute her and therefore got very upset. In reality, it was most likely to protect the super sensitive, easily offended crowd from seeing a bit of lady flesh.
I think if I was a woman in a public restaurant I would be grateful for something that let me feed my baby even more privately.
They didn't stop her breast feeding, they simply gave her more privacy if anything : /
If however there is a genuine reason why what they gave her actually impeded her ability to safely breastfeed then fair enough but I think once again we just have two parties vying to be the more offended.
Last edited:
Totally agree. From what I've read all they asked was for her to cover up, they didn't try to force her out into a seperate room or ask her to leave the restaurant so I'm not sure what the big deal is?
- Status