California breastfeeding picture controversy

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PictureSarah » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:12 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:Hm, fair enough. But I still wonder at the general principle -- why not breastfeed in a private place when possible? Is this a thing on which there should be no compromise?

I'm sincere -- should breastfeeding always happen in public, even if it's possible to do it in private?


I often breastfed in relative privacy if it was possible - notice above post where I was nursing in my car while I was at the pumpkin patch with my baby. It was frequently more comfortable for me and less distracting for my baby to nurse in a quiet place where I knew we wouldn't attract any unwanted attention. My belief about where breastfeeding, though, is that breastfeeding should happen wherever it is the most convenient and comfortable for mother and baby. We eat in public in the United States ALL THE TIME, so there is no reason why babies should not also eat in public. Women should not feel like they are obligated to isolate themselves in order to feed their babies. I really don't believe that people who are offended or made uncomfortable by public breastfeeding are entitled to any compromise, and the law in many states agrees with me.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:41 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:I'm sincere -- should breastfeeding always happen in public, even if it's possible to do it in private?
Honestly; can you think of any reason why it should be?

Should kissing your partner be illegal in public? What about kissing your same sex partner?

Do you see why 'what offends someone' is a poor metric here?


Illegal, god no.

And yes, someone getting offended does not inherently make them right.

There are social taboos that exist, including regarding kissing, but not every social norm needs to be encoded into law.

speising
Posts: 2363
Joined: Mon Sep 03, 2012 4:54 pm UTC
Location: wien

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby speising » Mon Jun 16, 2014 7:58 pm UTC

fwiw, i'd feel uncomfortable, too, if i had to watch a couple french kissing excessively in a restaurant.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:01 pm UTC

speising wrote:fwiw, i'd feel uncomfortable, too, if i had to watch a couple french kissing excessively in a restaurant.
I sort of wonder if they'd feel uncomfortable watching you eat a sandwich on the train.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
poxic
Eloquently Prismatic
Posts: 4756
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 3:28 am UTC
Location: Left coast of Canada

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby poxic » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:27 pm UTC

Derek wrote:I'm curious what makes you think that America is any more conservative about breast exposure or nudity in general than we were thirty years ago.

Not about breast exposure in general -- that has pretty much always led to people making judgy faces. Just breastfeeding. I'm going on my (admittedly limited) recollection of not seeing any controversy about it before about fifteen years ago.

I've seen breastfeeding in public since the '70s, but the earliest outrage performance art that I can remember was probably the later '90s or '00s. Anyone have a different experience?
The Supreme Ethical Rule: Act so as to elicit the best in others and thereby in thyself.
- Felix Adler, professor, lecturer, and reformer (13 Aug 1851-1933)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:28 pm UTC

speising wrote:fwiw, i'd feel uncomfortable, too, if i had to watch a couple french kissing excessively in a restaurant.


Right. There's a point that's a bit beyond social norms for kissing. But it'd be silly to make a law against that, right? There needs to be a little space between illegality and propriety.

Either you simply look away and politely ignore it, or, if it becomes terribly excessive, you ask them to please stop or find a more appropriate venue. There's a range of appropriateness within the realm of "kissing", certainly. This is likely also true with breastfeeding.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:35 pm UTC

Sure, but with all things in polite society you should check who is affronting who. I'd be uncomfortable watching two people engage in some bondage play in the middle of a child's playground, but the bondage play part of the matter isn't the reason I'd ask them to stop. You might not want to see a woman breastfeeding in a quiet public park, but unless you also think someone shouldn't eat a sandwich in a public park, you'd be in the wrong to ask her to stop.

I was at a concert once and some woman brought her infant, which she placed in earmuffs while she stood near the edge of the crowd. Someone got rowdy and bumped into her, and she started screaming at the guy to watch it, didn't he see there was a baby?! Onus of shitty behavior was definitely on her in that case.

So, you know, context matters.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Mon Jun 16, 2014 8:37 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:I'm sincere -- should breastfeeding always happen in public, even if it's possible to do it in private?
Honestly; can you think of any reason why it should be?

Should kissing your partner be illegal in public? What about kissing your same sex partner?

Do you see why 'what offends someone' is a poor metric here?


I also prefer sex on a public escalator to be illegal, not only because it's impressively difficult. I wouldn't say sex offends me. But it's not always decent. Some perfectly-ok things should stay private. That's entirely subjective of me. But not unfair.

Breastfeeding is only remotely like getting a little nooky. But I don't think it's unfair to wonder if it's indecent.

EDIT: I see you've recently brought up a similar example. Yeah, I basically think that the onus here is on people offended by breastfeeding. But I don't think it's unfair to ask 'why?'

PictureSarah wrote:I often breastfed in relative privacy if it was possible - notice above post where I was nursing in my car while I was at the pumpkin patch with my baby. It was frequently more comfortable for me and less distracting for my baby to nurse in a quiet place where I knew we wouldn't attract any unwanted attention. My belief about where breastfeeding, though, is that breastfeeding should happen wherever it is the most convenient and comfortable for mother and baby. We eat in public in the United States ALL THE TIME, so there is no reason why babies should not also eat in public. Women should not feel like they are obligated to isolate themselves in order to feed their babies. I really don't believe that people who are offended or made uncomfortable by public breastfeeding are entitled to any compromise, and the law in many states agrees with me.


I thought your car post was a good example of someone choosing to be offended. I really do agree with you. But I wonder if anyone disagrees, because it seems like most everyone agrees with you also.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jun 16, 2014 9:11 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:I thought your car post was a good example of someone choosing to be offended. I really do agree with you. But I wonder if anyone disagrees, because it seems like most everyone agrees with you also.


There's always the one or two meddling parent types. The sorts who know EXACTLY what you should be doing, and are happy to tell you. This is true even if you are single, as these sorts will happily tell you how you just cannot understand being a parent until you become one, and of course, it's the best thing ever. No doubt such people are equally obnoxious to other parents, what with the telling people what to do all the time.

Unfortunately, this seems to just be part of humanity. No great way to get rid of that.

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:23 am UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:I'm sincere -- should breastfeeding always happen in public, even if it's possible to do it in private?


Do you know how babies work?

They don't just get hungry at easily schedul-able intervals and, even when they do, it's often at a time that the parents need to do their own shit.

In these cases, there is no reasonable private option.

I suspect, very strongly, that almost all mothers would rather nurse their children in private than in public where such a choice is present. This is not usually the case when the mother is not at home.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:32 am UTC

I'm offended by any number of things, all which have failed to do much of any damage to me to this point. Being offended is something that happens a lot when there are a lot of people around.

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:51 am UTC

eSOANEM wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:I'm sincere -- should breastfeeding always happen in public, even if it's possible to do it in private?


Do you know how babies work?

They don't just get hungry at easily schedul-able intervals and, even when they do, it's often at a time that the parents need to do their own shit.

In these cases, there is no reasonable private option.

I suspect, very strongly, that almost all mothers would rather nurse their children in private than in public where such a choice is present. This is not usually the case when the mother is not at home.


Hence my "if it's possible" qualifier.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PAstrychef » Tue Jun 17, 2014 12:19 pm UTC

I suspect that many of the mothers breastfeeding in mall food courts would be comfortable in a quiet, clean room with comfy chairs if it wasn't part of the toilets, and if their friends could join them there. But I wouldn't make use of it mandatory.
It's the idea that you should feed your kid in the toilet, because that's where it's easy to put you where others don't have to watch that's offensive.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jun 17, 2014 1:55 pm UTC

Yeah, I think in the scheme of things, we should be asking mothers who need to breastfeed what would be offensive to them, and it's quite telling that most only consider what's offensive to the poor innocent bystander forced to catch an exposed breast outside the context of selling a product or seducing someone.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Heisenberg » Tue Jun 17, 2014 2:59 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:Breastfeeding is only remotely like getting a little nooky. But I don't think it's unfair to wonder if it's indecent.

That's the issue: Breastfeeding has absolutely nothing to do with sex. So there's no justification for calling it indecent.

As to why men in particular don't like to watch a child eat, that's best summed up by Pete from The League: "Breasts are meant to be ogled and fondled, not tugged at like some raccoon pulling at a trash bag." The breastfeeding controversy is fueled largely by men who wish to categorize the breast as purely sexual and are offended by its proper use.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:04 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Breastfeeding is only remotely like getting a little nooky. But I don't think it's unfair to wonder if it's indecent.

That's the issue: Breastfeeding has absolutely nothing to do with sex. So there's no justification for calling it indecent.


Peeing in public has nothing to do with sex either, but it's considered indecent.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:34 pm UTC

In my state it is called indecent exposure and can get you on the "list".

Breast feeding has everything and nothing to do with sex. Feeding your baby is one thing, whipping a breast out to do so is something all together different, for reasons having nothing to do with the child. It shouldn't be that way but is. However there exist no statutory reason not do so.

However it could be, and I'm not married to this, that babies themselves are not appropriate to every venue. Taking a baby to a rock show smacks of an overindulged sense of entitlement, and I could say the same of some other venues. And that has nothing to do with breasts. But in those places I expect babies to be, then people ought to shut up about breastfeeding. There is plenty of evidence that it is a good thing on any number of levels. People need to come out of their comfort zones and get over it.

About the OP's article, I'm torn. One part of me says that a graduation isn't an appropriate venue for a 4 month old. Babies quite often are disruptive because they are babies. But the other says that if the baby is present then there isn't any reason not to breastfeed. Is there a dichotomy in those two thoughts?

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:42 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Breastfeeding is only remotely like getting a little nooky. But I don't think it's unfair to wonder if it's indecent.

That's the issue: Breastfeeding has absolutely nothing to do with sex. So there's no justification for calling it indecent.


Peeing in public has nothing to do with sex either, but it's considered indecent.


That's because it would be smelly and gross if people went around peeing in public. Not the case with breastfeeding.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:48 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:However it could be, and I'm not married to this, that babies themselves are not appropriate to every venue. Taking a baby to a rock show smacks of an overindulged sense of entitlement, and I could say the same of some other venues. And that has nothing to do with breasts. But in those places I expect babies to be, then people ought to shut up about breastfeeding. There is plenty of evidence that it is a good thing on any number of levels. People need to come out of their comfort zones and get over it.

About the OP's article, I'm torn. One part of me says that a graduation isn't an appropriate venue for a 4 month old. Babies quite often are disruptive because they are babies. But the other says that if the baby is present then there isn't any reason not to breastfeed. Is there a dichotomy in those two thoughts?


I have a bit of sympathy for people who say that babies are disruptive at a serious event like a graduation...but what is the alternative? An exclusively breastfed baby might not take a bottle, so has to be with mom. If mom is used to nursing every 2 hours, then sitting through a longer event without nursing might cause discomfort and a drop in milk supply. If mom just graduated from college, isn't she entitled to celebrate that just like all the other graduates? And the law in California states that a mom can nurse in public anywhere that she and baby are legally allowed to be...including graduation.

I wouldn't bring my baby to a rock concert, a movie theater, or any number of other places. But I did bring him to my husband's college graduation, and I nursed him there (without a cover)...because it was important for his family to be there supporting him, and it was a long event, and babies gotta eat!
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Jun 17, 2014 4:58 pm UTC

PictureSarah wrote:I wouldn't bring my baby to a rock concert, a movie theater, or any number of other places. But I did bring him to my husband's college graduation, and I nursed him there (without a cover)...because it was important for his family to be there supporting him, and it was a long event, and babies gotta eat!
I think the issue people tend to have is they don't understand context, and instead apply it to all situations evenly. If they don't want to see a kid breastfeeding at the symphony, because a kid could cry and that would be disruptive (!) and because breastfeeding isn't austere enough for the ticket prices we paid (!), then OBVIOUSLY breastfeeding is inappropriate at the mall! Or a park! Or a graduation.

I really agree with poxic's earlier point that we live in a society that acts like an elderly conservative in a constant state of an anxiety attack. Old people kissing one another on the cheek is fine anywhere, because 'd'aww, true love', but a young gay couple? Won't someone fucking think of the children.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
PictureSarah
Secretary of Penile Nomenclature
Posts: 4576
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 8:37 pm UTC
Location: Sacramento, CA
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PictureSarah » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:03 pm UTC

If people don't want to hear a baby cry, then they should want to see a baby breastfeeding.
"A ship is safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 17, 2014 5:25 pm UTC

They could just oppose babies in general.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Jun 17, 2014 6:08 pm UTC

PictureSarah wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Heisenberg wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Breastfeeding is only remotely like getting a little nooky. But I don't think it's unfair to wonder if it's indecent.

That's the issue: Breastfeeding has absolutely nothing to do with sex. So there's no justification for calling it indecent.


Peeing in public has nothing to do with sex either, but it's considered indecent.


That's because it would be smelly and gross if people went around peeing in public. Not the case with breastfeeding.


The point is that your analogy is incorrect. Indecency is not simply about sex.

Note that I'm not arguing for laws against breastfeeding or what not, simply pointing out that this is an overreach.

It is entirely reasonable to state that some venues are not appropriate for a baby at all, yes.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:07 pm UTC

PictureSarah wrote:If people don't want to hear a baby cry, then they should want to see a baby breastfeeding.
I would very quickly tell you to occupy that babies mouth in some venues. :D However unless babies have changed hunger isn't the only thing that makes them cry. Circumstances alter cases.

@Izawwlgood
Manners are constantly being updated, so what was good manners one day is something different the next. People will adapt to gay couples kissing, but it takes time. Not everybody is young. So they were raised in different ways for different times. And change gets harder the older you get. Breast feeding went out of style and then came back. So there is a wide disparity in what people think about it. But most people I know never had a problem with it, and discretion can be part of the give and take that you have to put up with to live in close proximity to your fellow humans. And discretion is a two way street. Recognizing that your particular perspective isn't the only one is what manners is all about.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10546
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:31 pm UTC

I love reminding people that they have become the horrible old farts of their youth. 50 years ago the old farts opposed black rights, and it got voted in after enough of the bastards finally died. The youth that supported black rights then are the old farts that oppose gay marriage now, and once enough of them die it'll be legal in all states. So too it goes with trans rights, and from there who really knows which group will be next. Human rights for trans-dolphins? Cybernetic Lifeforms Act?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby morriswalters » Tue Jun 17, 2014 7:36 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I love reminding people that they have become the horrible old farts of their youth. 50 years ago the old farts opposed black rights, and it got voted in after enough of the bastards finally died. The youth that supported black rights then are the old farts that oppose gay marriage now, and once enough of them die it'll be legal in all states. So too it goes with trans rights, and from there who really knows which group will be next. Human rights for trans-dolphins? Cybernetic Lifeforms Act?
We meet the enemy and he is us. Pogo(kinda)

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby eSOANEM » Tue Jun 17, 2014 8:52 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:
eSOANEM wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:I'm sincere -- should breastfeeding always happen in public, even if it's possible to do it in private?


Do you know how babies work?

They don't just get hungry at easily schedul-able intervals and, even when they do, it's often at a time that the parents need to do their own shit.

In these cases, there is no reasonable private option.

I suspect, very strongly, that almost all mothers would rather nurse their children in private than in public where such a choice is present. This is not usually the case when the mother is not at home.


Hence my "if it's possible" qualifier.


possible != reasonable.

The distinction is very important in this case.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26818
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Jun 17, 2014 9:41 pm UTC

speising wrote:fwiw, i'd feel uncomfortable, too, if i had to watch a couple french kissing excessively in a restaurant.
Yeah, it would be pretty rude of them to make you watch. That should probably be illegal.
Image
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

jseah
Posts: 544
Joined: Tue Dec 27, 2011 6:18 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby jseah » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:25 am UTC

PictureSarah wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Peeing in public has nothing to do with sex either, but it's considered indecent.
That's because it would be smelly and gross if people went around peeing in public. Not the case with breastfeeding.

One could make the case that peeing in public should be considered littering. Or perhaps vandalism (due to discolouration and such damage).
Stories:
Time is Like a River - consistent time travel to the hilt
A Hero's War
Tensei Simulator build 18 - A python RPG

User avatar
rat4000
r/ratsgonewild
Posts: 451
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 7:51 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby rat4000 » Wed Jun 18, 2014 6:10 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:You might not want to see a woman breastfeeding in a quiet public park, but unless you also think someone shouldn't eat a sandwich in a public park, you'd be in the wrong to ask her to stop.
I agree with pretty much everything else you've said, but this sentence confuses me.

Shivahn wrote:The expectation that women be modest and chaste plays into all of this.
This is very belated, but: I'm not sure I agree. People who say women shouldn't breastfeed in public would (I expect) also say that a man shouldn't walk around with his fly wide open and no underwear, and the justification would be the same in both cases: some part of the body which should be covered, because it is heavily linked to sex, isn't. The same maxim holds for both sexes, it's just that more of the female body is heavily linked to sex.


Both replies I've made are basically nitpicking, and I'm part of the chorus here since I do think that breastfeeding in public is okay, but I want my side to be completely right, so.

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Wed Jun 18, 2014 8:10 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Yeah, I think in the scheme of things, we should be asking mothers who need to breastfeed what would be offensive to them, and it's quite telling that most only consider what's offensive to the poor innocent bystander forced to catch an exposed breast outside the context of selling a product or seducing someone.


I think this is a fair concern, but in general we aspire for a world safe for breastfeeding mothers. We expect decency in public places and special deference to women with children. Ratings systems aren't for our benefit; TV producers hardly consider that 20-somethings who browse XKCD might appreciate PG-rated daytime Television. We get halfway to the assumption that the public is an elderly conservative.

Maybe this is only a good observation at 4 AM: It seems like a Western society's standard of public decency is based on what's inacceptable for unsuspecting women, children, and elders.

(By the way, where are you seeing exposed breasts to advertise a product or seduce someone? I only see clothed breasts.)

PictureSarah wrote:If people don't want to hear a baby cry, then they should want to see a baby breastfeeding.


I don't know if the other opinion would say that. Why not formula feed or no baby at all?

I think it's too easy to criticize the other position since no one's offering it. My quick Google search shows that most of the press and opinion-makers agree with us. I see stories about how women are 'made to cover up' -- not stories about how others are 'made to watch'.

http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2012/03/27 ... llegal-in/

Spoiler:
Although 45 states allow women to breast-feed infants in any public or private location, many new mothers don't always feel that's true.

So Seattle City Councilman Bruce Harrell, on behalf of the Seattle Women's Commission, is trying to get Seattle to pass its own bill. If it becomes law, anyone who tells a nursing mother to button up or get out may have to pay fines in the thousands of dollars.

Although 24 states peeled back their laws that classified breast-feeding publicly as "indecent exposure," [Over what time frame?] Facebook still removes photos of nursing mothers over concerns about obscenity. In response, women have held "nurse-ins" outside Facebook's offices around the world. Mothers took their protest to Facebook's office in Seattle last month.


It sounds to me like "Public breastfeeding is ok" is the only respectable opinion anymore. When Facebook disagrees, they're protested. It makes me curious as to how those 24 states had indecent exposure laws for breastfeeding in the first place. I've never seen a convincing argument for breastfeeding being indecent exposure. But somebody else (many somebody elses) have.

eSOANEM wrote:
possible != reasonable.

The distinction is very important in this case.


Yes, which is why I asked if it was reasonable, not possible for women to breastfeed in public if there's a private option.

EDIT: Missed one:

Heisenberg wrote:
mobiusstripsearch wrote:Breastfeeding is only remotely like getting a little nooky. But I don't think it's unfair to wonder if it's indecent.

That's the issue: Breastfeeding has absolutely nothing to do with sex. So there's no justification for calling it indecent.

As to why men in particular don't like to watch a child eat, that's best summed up by Pete from The League: "Breasts are meant to be ogled and fondled, not tugged at like some raccoon pulling at a trash bag." The breastfeeding controversy is fueled largely by men who wish to categorize the breast as purely sexual and are offended by its proper use.


If there's calling breastfeeding indecent is unjustified, is toplessness being illegal also unjustified? This is a question many peoples might say 'yes' to. But in America it's generally indecent, and I don't see a compelling reason why this opinion is wrong.

I personally don't oppose pricks in public because they have to do with sex. I oppose pricks in public because I think it's indecent -- both for myself and for kids too young to make that decision. I think that breasts used for breastfeeding are (can be) completely appropriate. But I don't think it's fair to strawman people with the opposite opinion as misogynists.
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Jun 18, 2014 11:55 am UTC

jseah wrote:
PictureSarah wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Peeing in public has nothing to do with sex either, but it's considered indecent.
That's because it would be smelly and gross if people went around peeing in public. Not the case with breastfeeding.

One could make the case that peeing in public should be considered littering. Or perhaps vandalism (due to discolouration and such damage).


Perhaps, but different charges will be filed. Ones that can be significantly more negative than mere littering. And, frankly, dumping out a soda is on about the same level normally, and that's much less likely to get you arrested.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby leady » Wed Jun 18, 2014 12:49 pm UTC

also peeing in Public in Europe (not the UK naturally) isn't frowned on, just like lady lumps - they have urinals in public in Amsterdam

User avatar
eSOANEM
:D
Posts: 3652
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:39 pm UTC
Location: Grantabrycge

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby eSOANEM » Wed Jun 18, 2014 1:36 pm UTC

The UK frowns upon peeing in public but generally it's very unlikely to get you prosecuted and, in most cases where it does, it would be for being drunk and disorderly or somesuch instead of indecent exposure. Also, something's recently appeared in Cambridge circus which, whilst unlabelled as such, I can't see being designed to be anything other than a urinal.
my pronouns are they

Magnanimous wrote:(fuck the macrons)

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby leady » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:01 pm UTC

well quite, as a man in the UK its my natural right to scent mark my territory *ahem*

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby Diadem » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:07 pm UTC

In the Netherlands public urination is legal outside city limits.

Is that not the case in other countries? If you're hitchhiking in the USA, a thousand miles from any form of civilization, and you really need to pee, are you not allowed to do so?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1895
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby natraj » Wed Jun 18, 2014 2:48 pm UTC

public urination is illegal in every state in america. while cities often have their own more specific laws i am pretty sure that it is illegal no matter where you are.

i think just in practice it's not enforced so much Away From People mostly cuz there's nobody around to see you do it?

i have never actually considered what this means with regards to camping and stuff. i mean usually when people are busted for it it's homeless people (which is obnoxious because where else are you going to pee?) and drunk people. i don't think i've heard of anyone getting arrested for peeing out in the country while camping or something, but looking at laws i am pretty sure it's still illegal.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
mobiusstripsearch
Posts: 97
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 8:21 am UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby mobiusstripsearch » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:04 pm UTC

leady wrote:also peeing in Public in Europe (not the UK naturally) isn't frowned on, just like lady lumps - they have urinals in public in Amsterdam


I've never heard this; that's interesting.

Is it still illegal to, say, open your fly and walk around willy out?
"The inward skies of man will accompany him across any void upon which he ventures and will be with him to the end of time." -- Loren Eiseley

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 3068
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby PAstrychef » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:07 pm UTC

One reason there is little coverage (ahem) of those who are "forced to watch" is that they really aren't forced to watch anything. They can turn their heads and the baby in question won't be in their field of view anymore.
Being topless in public is legal for men, and is legal for women in most states. linky. Whether it is seen as okay is a different matter, but technically you can do it.
Babies don't belong in every venue, but in venues where they belong feeding them is fine, however it's done.
The whole concept of "I don't want to see boobs, because boos are supposed be sexy, and if I see them I have sexy thoughts and it's all your fault!" is the same bullshit that leads to the burka. Men cannot be expected to deal with sexy thoughts, so women have to be "modest". Fuck that.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

leady
Posts: 1592
Joined: Mon Jun 18, 2012 12:28 pm UTC

Re: California breastfeeding picture controversy

Postby leady » Wed Jun 18, 2014 3:17 pm UTC

mobiusstripsearch wrote:Is it still illegal to, say, open your fly and walk around willy out?


no idea - but I wouldn't try it. Continental (essentially Napoleanic) law is very intolerant with tolerant police. Anglosaxon is tolerant law with intolerant police.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Leovan and 10 guests