beside, except for the 3 seconds you uncover the breast, and put the baby on it, and the other 23 seconds where you remove the baby and cover the breast again, what exactly there is to see, there's a baby in front of the breast...Mezahmay said:The issue is not with "evolutionary biology". The issue some have is perceived public indecency based on one's individual beliefs and/or their society's view of breasts in general. For one to argue from a moral stance that a mother should not feed their newborn child is just flat out wrong. To argue they shouldn't breastfeed around other people since not everyone wants to see bare breast is another thing.Shamanic Rhythm said:Breastfeeding? Who the heck has a problem with that? "How dare you display your evolutionary biology in front of me!"
The phrasing of that post was generalized to respond to someone whose post did not reflect an opinion of public breastfeeding as something beyond a biological function. I was hoping to enlighten them that some people hold a sort of moral objection to it or at least an attitude towards mild nudity that their society has told them is unacceptable.cathou said:beside, except for the 3 seconds you uncover the breast, and put the baby on it, and the other 23 seconds where you remove the baby and cover the breast again, what exactly there is to see, there's a baby in front of the breast...
I don't remember the incident very well but if I recall it was considered tasteless...I don't know. maybe the same kind of WTF-ery that Miley pulled last MTV thingKuala BangoDango said:I'm just so tired of so many women getting upset when Janet Jackson exposes her breasts (and any other number of examples) yet so many of these same women are o.k. with a breast being exposed as long as there's a baby involved.
Because babies suck on tits for sustenance, and grown adults suck on tits for sexual arousal. That's a pretty massive difference.Kuala BangoDango said:If it's o.k. for a breast to be out and sucked on by a baby in public then it should also be o.k. for a breast to be out and sucked on by a guy (or gal). The breast itself has not changed so why should the "rules" change?
That's a cool service to provide!cathou said:beside, here a lot of movie theatre offer baby viewing. once a week (here's it's every friday at 1 pm) they present a movie for parents and baby. the movie is not necessary a kid movie, but the sound is less loud, they put tables for diapers changing and they dont close the lights completly. believe me when i say that it saved my sanity to be able to go there...
1. That's a really cool service to offer and I wish more theaters did that. Seriously, when the Avengers came out some guy showed up to the midnight premier with his baby (not even a toddler, a straight up under 1 year old baby). The baby started crying before the movie even started and everyone in the theater told him to get the hell out and that he was a terrible parent for bringing the baby with him to a loud ass movie theater in the middle of the night, and his response was "shut up, I paid the the ticket so I have the right to be here." I can't stand parents like that.cathou said:second, breast milk and bottled milk are not the same. breast feeding a baby and giving a baby breast milk in a bottle is not the same either. And drinking in a bottle is a lot easier that drinking from a breasts. some baby get lazy when you give them bottle and refuse to the breast after getting use to a bottle. so it's not a good idea for every baby to give a bottle.
beside, here a lot of movie theatre offer baby viewing. once a week (here's it's every friday at 1 pm) they present a movie for parents and baby. the movie is not necessary a kid movie, but the sound is less loud, they put tables for diapers changing and they dont close the lights completly. believe me when i say that it saved my sanity to be able to go there...
Yeah except here's the difference. A grown man can hold it in and settle the problem when it's more convenient. A year old baby can't feed himself.cthulhuspawn82 said:As many people bring up during the breastfeeding argument, pissing is natural so why don't we do that in public. The reason why you cant pee in public is because men can pee. Only women can breast feed, which lets them fallaciously link it to women's rights/women's choice. If men produced milk and fed babies the same way women do, public breastfeeding could be labeled inappropriate and regulated to private places like bathrooms.
It doesn't make me uncomfortable.Colour Scientist said:Does it make you feel uncomfortable when you see a woman breastfeeding her child in a public area? If so, does it always make you uncomfortable or is it okay provided that her breasts are completely covered?
The act of breastfeeding I definitely see as non-sexual, despite being attracted to breasts.Alternatively, do you just see it as something natural and non-sexual, something women should be free to do whenever and wherever they please?
I think as a whole society should grow up. At the same time, this may be a reasonable compromise.Do you think that instead of possibly making people uncomfortable, women should have to go into private areas, such as bathrooms, to breastfeed?
Exhibitionists? No. Should women carry extra equipment around? Doesn't seem necessary to me.Do you think that women who do so are exhibitionists? Should they just always have bottles prepared to feed their child when out and about?