If you dislike seeing breastfeeding then you are the one with the problem

No, because social convention doesn't prohibit being fat. Only partial nudity of the fat in public.

Reply 82

cole-slaw

5

Original post by DanB1991

By definition due to the fact they're used for breast feeding they're a sexual organ, they're part of the reproductive process.

I stopped reading here, because if you think that feeding an infant is a "part of the reproductive process" there is no point debating with you.

Reply 83

corax

21

People don't seem to realise that mothers end up breast feeding in all sorts of environments because when a baby is hungry for milk you can't just ignore your baby's needs because you're in a specific environment.

I also don't get why you'd feel the need to stare? Haven't we all seen breasts before?

Reply 84

DanB1991

Original post by brendonbackflip

A) Not true. Firstly, they're expensive, and secondly, they're pretty painful actually, and time consuming for little amount. Or have you used a pump before?
B) What? What? What? Have you never been to a public toilet?? Many are revolting!
C) Babies don't have stomachs like oven timers. They don't have a concept of breakfast-lunch-dinner. They eat when they want to eat. If they don't want to eat, they don't eat. The mother has little control over that.
D) Formula mixing is bad for the baby, it is definitely noticeable for them! they may reject it, and voila baby does not eat. Plus, forumula doesn't cause growths, but it doesn't produce the antibodies that defend babies to infections and illnesses which they are prone to. It is far, far, far healthier to breastfeed your child.

A) £15-£150 is the price range, and yeah I know plenty of people who have used them with no complaints.... I do have a mother, female relatives and friends surprisingly enough.
B) Most bacteria in a kitchen is invisible, have you worked in a kitchen? They require cleaning around once every 15 minutes while serving food otherwise there will be more bacteria on that counter than a toilet. How many people do you know who constantly clean their Kitchen work-surface even twice a day? Also the kind of establishment were a mother would want to feed a child have hygiene standards they "have" to adhere to, it's not a public council restroom we're talking about.
C) Yes but it hardly works out that if that baby will starve to death if the mother takes time to go somewhere out of the way. Secondly I know plenty of mothers who make sure their baby is fed and diaper changed etc before they go out anywhere to help reduce the likelihood of their child being hungry.
D)"Formula is bad for the baby" I have yet to see a baby die or suffer malnutrition from having formula, I'm sorry. And actually look into the "far far healthier" stats, you'll notice the actually difference between breastfed and formula raised babies is minute. And the whole "they can tell the difference" or "they get confused" argument is invalid seeing it's all behavioural. Get a routine from the start and the baby will be fine. Many health organisations such as the NHS state using both Breast-milk and formula is perfectly fine as well.

Reply 85

Original post by Jebedee

No, because social convention doesn't prohibit being fat. Only partial nudity of the fat in public.

I'll assume that this was a reply to me.

Hypothetically what about if the person in question finds the sight of your naked hands (or if you wear shorts in the summer, legs) nudity and finds it fat and therefore offensive, would you accommodate them and eat away?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 86

Original post by donutaud15

I'll assume that this was a reply to me.

Hypothetically what about if the person in question finds the sight of your naked hands (or if you wear shorts in the summer, legs) nudity and finds it fat and therefore offensive, would you accommodate them and eat away?

Posted from TSR Mobile

No. Just because social convention is important, it doesn't mean it has no limits.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 87

HeyFromNY_USA

I was a breastfed child. Nothing wrong with me :biggrin:

Reply 88

Original post by Jebedee

No. Just because social convention is important, it doesn't mean it has no limits.

Posted from TSR Mobile

No what you mean is it's one rule for you and another for others, more specifically, bigger women.

You've just proven what I already know. :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 89

cole-slaw

5

Original post by Jebedee

No. Just because social convention is important, it doesn't mean it has no limits.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Using past social conventions as the basis of an argument as to what should be the future social convention is about as circular as an argument gets. If everyone had that attitude we'd still be sending 6 year olds up chimneys.

Reply 90

TheBigGeek

9

Original post by Zorgotron

Public breastfeeding was defended by the claim that it is good, natural and doesn't inherently harm anyone. Masturbation is exactly the same. So the same argument applies to masturbation, therefore public masturbation should also be allowed.

Women flashers bother me. Exposing some saggy ass breasts bothers me. Why do women get a free pass whereas men don't?

Tell me the last time that you saw a woman walking around topless (which is legal!). Now, when was the last time you saw a man walking around topless. Women do not get a free pass over men.

Also, breast feeding is not an activity that provides sexual pleasure for the mother and nothing to anyone else. It is to feed a hungry infant. Masturbation is something you do that provides you with sexual pleasure. Breastfeeding feeds a baby who needs it. They're not comparable.

Reply 91

Zorgotron

6

Original post by TheBigGeek

Also, breast feeding is not an activity that provides sexual pleasure for the mother and nothing to anyone else. It is to feed a hungry infant. Masturbation is something you do that provides you with sexual pleasure. Breastfeeding feeds a baby who needs it. They're not comparable.

I really don't see how the difference is relevant.

Let's replace masturbation with taking a **** then. That's something that everyone needs to do, and unlike eating, taking a **** is a more pressing matter. Should it be allowed to have people urinate and **** in public? I mean, it's natural, doesn't hurt anyone and actually fertilizes the ground and thus contributes to a green environment.

Should it be allowed?

Reply 92

redferry

19

Also, would people really rather be sat next to a screaming child than a quiet suckling one? I know which I would choose..

Reply 93

Original post by donutaud15

No what you mean is it's one rule for you and another for others, more specifically, bigger women.

You've just proven what I already know. :rolleyes:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Errr I'm quite capable of speaking for myself. You are the one who created this hypothetical situation and I am not fat. Ergo I don't fall under the category. I can show a bit of skin as I'm not fat. If I was then I'd be subject to the same rules.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 94

TheBigGeek

9

Original post by Zorgotron

I really don't see how the difference is relevant.

Let's replace masturbation with taking a **** then. That's something that everyone needs to do, and unlike eating, taking a **** is a more pressing matter. Should it be allowed to have people urinate and **** in public? I mean, it's natural, doesn't hurt anyone and actually fertilizes the ground and thus contributes to a green environment.

Should it be allowed?

Honestly, thinking about it, I actually wouldn't mind if someone wanted to poo in public, provided they then removed it - breastfeeding leaves no mess or milk behind, it's all contained.

There is the smell, though. That would be pretty nasty. This is still different to breastfeeding though as the smell and leaving of waste (if they didn't clear it up) can affect other people. Breastfeeding only affects you if you look and are confronted by it. There's no smell, no noise (stops the baby crying!), no waste... It doesn't actually affect other people unless they choose to be affected, whereas a really smelly **** would.

Reply 95

Original post by Jebedee

Errr I'm quite capable of speaking for myself. You are the one who created this hypothetical situation and I am not fat. Ergo I don't fall under the category. I can show a bit of skin as I'm not fat. If I was then I'd be subject to the same rules.

Posted from TSR Mobile

That is actually subjective. There are women who are not fat but just had a baby so they look bigger (boobs and stomach) According to you ' If she's fat and gross like they usually are' that's just your opinion so I created a hypothetical situation where someone thinks you're 'fat and gross' and somehow that's different to you.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 96

rayofkryptonite

6

I personally think it's tacky and it says a lot about the person doing it in public like not having much care about their surroundings, don't make the argument about how if it was my mum or sister that i wouldn't be saying the same thing because i would be.

Reply 97

Original post by donutaud15

That is actually subjective. There are women who are not fat but just had a baby so they look bigger (boobs and stomach) According to you ' If she's fat and gross like they usually are' that's just your opinion so I created a hypothetical situation where someone thinks you're 'fat and gross' and somehow that's different to you.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Well people have to use their own common sense and judgement. It shouldn't have to be spelled out in black and white. If you have a body most people wouldn't really appreciate seeing involuntarily, you'd know about it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 98

De Chirico

9

Don't get your tits out, love.

Reply 99