Is breastfeeding obscene?

There are tax credits available to home owners. Does this mean that they have no say in what is allowed on their property?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Private housing does not intend to serve the public. Don't want to let citizens into your business when they're not harming it? Don't run a business.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Private property is private property. And what if it IS harming the business in the sense that customers are made uncomfortable and choose to leave?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There are different types of private property. That's why law governing business and home ownership are different.

Business property rights end where rights to my body functions have no direct impact on your environment begin. You're not even going to notice a woman breastfeeding in public. Have you ever seen a woman breastfeed in public? Am I not allowed to have a blanket over my shoulder?

 

Banning activities (and breastfeeding is an activity) is not the same thing as banning certain races, genders or people with disabilities.

The comparison to making stores handicapped accessible was faulty, too. You don't *have* to breastfeed at a particular store or in public at all. But a quadriplegic can't magically get out of his or her wheelchair and walk around if the aisle is too narrow to roll through.

 

The laws should make no such distinction, in my opinion. Private property shouldn't become public property simply because the public is sometimes allowed on it.

And yes, I've seen women breastfeeding in public. I didn't find it offensive at all, but it was immediately obvious to me what was going on.

And what if other customers notice and complain?

 

Breastfeeding is a biological function. Limping cripples shouldn't come in stores then. They should use a chair because they offend me and they don't have to inflict that on me!

 

Those who are against breastfeed just stop having babies and this will sort itself out in a generation.

 

Lots of things are biological functions. Should businesses be forced to allow anything that is classified as such?

You fail to recognize the difference between a behavior and things that generally can't be controlled (race, gender, disabilities).

 

People get refused service all the time.
Because of no shoes, no shirt, smoking, etc.

 

I'm in favor of this.

Just like my breast milk and hungry infant, disabilities and gender and other things that might potentially offend someone. You fail to recognize the difference between a state of biological function and a socialized behavior that has no kind of evolutionary/biological root.

 

I've seen plenty of public breastfeeding sessions, and I honestly don't see what some people find so bothersome about it. It's not like the women where jumping up and down with their boobs flopping out. :shrug:

When I was in college, I worked for a company that had stores around the country. At one of these stores (not the one I worked in) a woman was breastfeeding her child. Customers complained and the woman was politely (supposedly) asked to stop breastfeeding or leave (not sure which it was). Shitstorm ensued. I really felt bad for the employee at that store who was put into this position. What do you do when you're forced to either do something that will get you in trouble or potentially lose business?

 

A breastfeeding mother doesn't have to breastfeed in public or at a particular store. There's a big difference between a voluntary behavior and an involuntary physical condition.

If I was scratching my balls at the local hardware store and an employee asked me to stop, does that mean he or she is discriminating against men? No, it just means that they don't want me engaging in that particular activity.

 

I understand your argument. I'm just saying that it isn't logical. There's a big difference between saying, "Women aren't allowed to breastfeed in this store." and saying, "Women who breastfeed their children in the privacy of their own homes still aren't allowed in this store."

And just because something is legal doesn't mean that businesses have to provide a play area for you to do it.

You'll get no argument from me on the subject of health risks. When I said that ElectricFetus made valid points, I was referring to comments such as this (from the 4th post of this discussion thread):

"Intrinsically either action is different from the other, but both actions have set similarities, both involve the exposure of so called "obscene" regions of the body, both involve bodily discharge, just because we can pretty up one with babies and with asserting feminism does not mean its not obscene."

 

How was that a valid point?

Genitals are 'obscene' for a reason. They're purely sexual parts. There's nothing utilitarian or otherwise non sexual about testicles or a vagina. They're there for one obvious reason. (I don't agree with this viewpoint. I think unless you're engaging in actual sexual behaviour, nakedness is not obscene. But society thinks differently.)

Breasts are not purely sexual parts. They're there for a functional reason; to feed children.

Which matters more? The fact that we attach CONNOTATIONS to breasts (sexuality) or the fact that a REAL CHILD NEEDS FEEDING?

 

You're comparing scratching genitals to feeding a baby. You're not that stupid, I hope.

If you walk with a limp, you can stop that, too. Just use a wheelchair. No different than the special accommodation of a bottle and pump.

 

I'm demonstrating the difference between discouraging an activity and discrimination against one's physical characteristics.

I'll go out on a limb and say that in terms of convenience, there's probably a huge difference between pumping breast milk into a bottle and living your public life confined to a wheelchair.

 

You're doing a terrible job. Walking with a limp is an activity.

Keeping the milk fresh or finding a place that is sanitary to feed a baby is pretty fucking hard. The point isn't difficulty, though. The point is that women shouldn't have to arrange feeding their children around a couple of perverts who get up in arms about this in the same way people who limp shouldn't have to be in chairs to stop from bothering bigots.