Nudity in general is a controversial issue. When should it be permitted and when is sexual. And when does either matter, really? Bill Maher says women should be allowed to breastfeed in public. And why can't I masturbate in public too? I don't think we're ready for the last one just yet. But he brings up a good point with the first. Nudity is a personal choice. And if it's not sexual in any way, what's the big deal? Michelangelo's David can be displayed in public since his time. Most people don't have a problem with that. And if you do, and even if it offends you a lot, what do you want the rest of us to do? We consider it art and free expression. But breastfeeding is necessary because the baby needs to eat now. Public businesses don't want to be required to provide a private breastfeeding lounge because that would be too expensive. They don't even want to provide an lounge or anteroom to their women's room for her to use. The business could at least be expected to provide a chair in the women's room to sit down in, but they don't even want to do that. Thoughts?
What the fuck do people think breasts are for? Mammals have suckled their young for over 300 million years, and it's never been a big deal until the rise of the Abrahamic puritans and their thanatotic, sadomasochistic hatred of anything and everything pleasurable or life-giving.
As you said yourself, breastfeeding is to feed a child. It's a legitimate biological function of humans, and other species, that has nothing to do with sexuality. It's just food being provided by one human to the next in a way that has existed since humans existed. Masturbation however, is a sexual act, therefore cannot be used as a comparison or counter argument against breast feeding. Masturbation is categorised along with intercourse, fondling, foreplay, reproduction in general, even if there is nobody else present to receive the reproduction. (male/female/whatever one may identify as) Nudity is a whole other category in of itself. Nudity does not always equate to sex, sexuality, reproduction or the like. The Statue of David is a form of art, as well as a decent study of the human anatomy. Nor is the art "Birth of Venus" designed as some old timy porn. There's nudity, but it is not inherently sexual by nature. People can go to nude beaches but that doesn't mean they're wanting sex. This all boils down to what is sexual in nature and what is not. Things that are sexual tend to not be socially acceptable to be performed in a public place for others to see, especially minors. Breast feeding an infant is not sexual in nature but a mother providing their infant child the resources it needs to grow and develop, as well as improve the connection and bond between the two. But why are breasts considered sexual in the first place? They don't have anything to do with sexual intercourse or reproduction in the sense of conceiving a child. They're used after the fact. And yet, women are expected to cover them up in public. In most countries and in most public spaces, men's breasts are not restricted in the same manner, and the only difference between the two is physical shape, size and milk production (or lack there of). So men can go topless but women cannot, why? For one thing, many men are physically attracted to female breasts, to the point of distraction. This isn't the fault of women, but it's also not entirely the fault of men either. Notice how humans are the only primate species on the planet where the females have enlarged breasts during and after puberty? Other primate species don't have females with enlarged breasts unless they're with child and feeding. But we're also the only primate species on the planet who regularly walk on two legs. Bipedal. Research and fancy brain people over the years have speculated that because we humans walk upright, we have evolved in a way that made female bodies have enlarged breasts to increase chances of attracting a mate. Other animals on the planet that walk on all fours usually have their asses hanging out and about and when the female of that species is ready for mating, signals and what not are displayed in the rear, in many different ways, depending on the species. Humans, being upright, have this area not really front and centre, but notice how the upper portions of the breasts mimic the upper portion of the ass. Cleavage is there, etc. It's a secondary area of the body that has evolved to draw attraction from the male human species due to standing upright and being bipedal. Some guys like a nice ass, some guys like a nice set of boobs, and some guys like both at the same time. It's also why women with their boobs hanging halfway out of their shirts can be distracting and difficult to not look at. Now whether these brain wiz bang scientists are correct, I don't know, but it makes "some" sense when you think about it. So, back to that woman at the restaurant breast feeding their child. Is it a sexual act? No. Could some people disassociate that infant getting their food, focus on the exposed breast, and consider that breast as a sexual thing? Some probably do, but they really shouldn't. It's not intended by that woman to be a sexual thing. Her focus is towards her child and its needs. Those who become aware of what that woman is doing should turn their heads back around, continue with their day, and mind their own business. She is not putting on a show for others and if she doesn't do this, you're probably going to end up with a disturbed meal at the restaurant because the child will be screaming it's ass off until fed. Let her do her job in peace so everyone can have peace eating at the restaurant (including the child) Oh, and the other difference between breastfeeding and someone masturbsting in a public place is hygiene. How often have you gone somewhere where a mother has left their breast milk all over the place or didn't properly clean things up afterwards? They don't want to get a mess on themselves and they want their baby to be clean & not get sick. Now compare to some random guy jerking off at their booth or some random woman fapping their flaps on the stool. How well do you expect all that to be cleaned up? You going to eat your meal with those hands afterwards? Are you going to shake a friend or family member's hands when they sit down for dinner? Are you going to hand over your card for payment? Maybe you'll actually clean things up properly and disinfect. Good for you..... Now consider all the other random people who sat there before you did who didn't bother. (and those who show up afterwards) How many of those people had infections or STDs? Seems like a good way for many people to contract something kinda bad and get sick.... Not to mention a pretty bad occupational health hazard for employees who have to do a lot more cleaning and disinfection before the next customers come in. Most breast feeding women come prepared to breast feed properly. Would you plan to rock up to a restaurant and rub one out in a proper manner? How would one do that? (I'm not saying it's impossible, just curious as to how you'd go about doing this in a sanitary way)
More right wing bullshit. Force a woman to have a baby, then deny her the right to actually feed it in public. Nothing says pro life like denying a meal to a child.
Every female mammal on the earth breast feeds their young. It's a natural fact of life. So why is it considered so evil for humans, that you need to hide it from sight ? It's the most natural thing on earth. To feed your child. You should send them into a dark corner where they can't be seen? Force them to siting a bathroom to feed their child. Would you eat your dinner in the bathroom where somebody just used it ? Then why force a mother to do so? Babies do not read a clock , they do not schedule their meals. Allow women to breast feed without any restrictions. It's that simple.
"Ron and Ron" taught me that women should "Let the puppies breath." IYKYK As a father, I had to watch how complicated society makes things for families that want to do what's natural and right. WE were the ones that had to find a secluded place, so as to not offend. WE were the ones that had to cover up our child while he ate, so as to not offend. We were the ones that had to buy clothes that don't expose much, so as to not offend. I wanted to scream "F you to those that get offended." In the end, society needs to get over itself and stop being so offended by women's nipples. We ALL have them.
Those who are pre-disposed to take offence, are rapidly discarded from my friendship circle. If I want to offend I will but until then, if anyone takes offence, they're out.
If it becomes commonplace to see exposed breasts, soon no one would would be able to be teased into clicking on a site / s to buy more--buy more now. When I lived in an old house below Captain Cook on the Big Island, most all the folks went without clothes in the jungle there. It wasn't long before it became so commonplace to talk to folks without clothing--you didn't notice at all.
Can’t believe this is even an issue. My wife was doing it over twenty years ago. It’s commonplace in the UK.
I chose not to breast feed after both of my pregnancies, but had I done so, I would have had no inhibitions about breast feeding in public.
It’s not for me to say. It’s the mother’s choice. There is a connection between a mother and child when breastfeeding. If it bothered me I would look away.
