Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(shrug) Who knows? Maybe you can research the law to find out if you really need to know. In this case, and in no case that I've heard of in my entire life, even anecdotally, did a breastfeeding mother take off her entire shirt, but if it's bugging you that much, you could always ask a lawyer friend or Google it or what have you.
I'm not sure why this is bothering you so much. You seem to keep coming back to it, always putting a sexual undertone in there...she wants to expose her breasts; she wants to take off her shirt entirely. Honestly, a breast is a breast is a breast, who cares? Is it THAT dirty a thing? Only in the U.S. (or in the third grade) could this become this big a deal, in my opinion. For the love of Mike. It is a breast.
Also, you keep mentioning that breastfeeding is a ploy for attention. But you have also mentioned that talking on cell phones are a ploy for attention, and the PW football/ADHD issue. You seem to resent freedoms and minimize them to "attention-getting". Again, looking inwardly might be the key here. If you take these case by case, it doesn't seem very logical that all (or IMO, any--but that is just my opinion) of these actions could possibly be for attention, but since it is you who see entire groups in this light, it's probably time to look inward and wonder why you do. The Freud in me wants to say that you resent others receiving attention because you didn't receive enough of it, and you now see it everywhere you go. (Oh shut up, Freud. That darned Freud. GET BACK down there. That's okay...I can always stifle him with food.)
Oh, I just thought of something. You ask if it would be legal for the woman to have her shirt off. Well, it certainly seems to be legal if she chooses to do so in print and land on a magazine displayed right next to the Wrigley's gum at the Quick Check. So just offhand, without legal knowledge, I'd have to say, no, maybe it wouldn't be. On the other hand...this pretty much emphasizes that it's okay and legal to display 90% of a woman's breasts publicly, if it's for a man's pleasure; if it's for something like, I don't know, food, then it's cause for alarm and whole laws need to be enacted about it in order for mothers to be allowed to feed children. We have a serious case of arrested development going on in our culture...and a very very weird sense of what the human body is here for and what's "allowable".
That women want to display their breasts, that they breastfeed for the attention and now the question of what would happen if the woman took off her shirt entirely.
That women want to display their breasts, that they breastfeed for the attention and now the question of what would happen if the woman took off her shirt entirely.
Do any of you that are supporting her "normal breastfeeding efforts" think that she may be an activist? And that stunt at Applebees might have been a part of her efforts to educate?
According to the article, there wasn't any indication that she was an activist. But what if she was? What if she was trying to educate people? How would that change anything? It's still not against the law to breastfeed. Or to be an activist. Or to educate.
And what is she was trying to get attention? Do you have any reason to think she was trying to get personal attention, as opposed to attention to the fact that women who breastfeed are often expected to hide to do so?
If she WAS doing it for attention, she was engaged in a time-honored American tradition or bringing attention to a social issue that she thinks should be changed. Now what?
Marlow brought up some very interesting points. I see the nurse-in as a good example of receiving attention in order to educate people. It doesn't claim to be anything else, so that all makes sense.
As far as the subject of this post, though, I am really missing what, out of all the details given, could make anyone draw the conclusion that she breastfed her baby to get attention. Again...drawing that conclusion without any basis, to me, points more to the person making the accusation than to the person who breastfed in public. That's just the feeling I get off it.
According to the article, there wasn't any indication that she was an activist. But what if she was? What if she was trying to educate people? How would that change anything? It's still not against the law to breastfeed. Or to be an activist. Or to educate.
And what is she was trying to get attention? Do you have any reason to think she was trying to get personal attention, as opposed to attention to the fact that women who breastfeed are often expected to hide to do so?
If she WAS doing it for attention, she was engaged in a time-honored American tradition or bringing attention to a social issue that she thinks should be changed. Now what?
Right, according to the news she was not an activist. Do you think she was? I am thinking she was. How would it change anything? Are you kidding? Why are we aware of this. She was an activist acting like a victim.
No, I don't think she was an activist. I think she was a mother breastfeeding her child. You seem to be the one who thinks she was an activist and claim to be appalled at it. That's what I'm not getting. What if she was an activist? Then what?
Why do you equate activists and victims? Do you think everyone who stands up for themselves is an activist? Or a victim? I'm not getting your logic here.
No, I don't think she was an activist. I think she was a mother breastfeeding her child. You seem to be the one who thinks she was an activist and claim to be appalled at it. That's what I'm not getting. What if she was an activist? Then what?
Why do you equate activists and victims? Do you think everyone who stands up for themselves is an activist? Or a victim? I'm not getting your logic here.
I guess I don't understand the law as written. If the breastfeeding mother took her entire shirt off and turned (from the discreet corner she was in) to the crowd...is that okay under the law?
Correct me, if I am mistaken, but did anyone at Applebee's ask her to leave?
It said right in the story about it, that the waitress told her to use a blanket or leave.
Elmonellie, obviously you think this was a stunt. Have you ever been the mother of a nursing baby? If so, I doubt you'd see this as a 'stunt'.
Aren't you writing some sort of book? I don't think you're going to get your shock-and-awe mileage for it out of this story.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the other hand...this pretty much emphasizes that it's okay and legal to display 90% of a woman's breasts publicly, if it's for a man's pleasure; if it's for something like, I don't know, food, then it's cause for alarm and whole laws need to be enacted about it in order for mothers to be allowed to feed children. We have a serious case of arrested development going on in our culture...and a very very weird sense of what the human body is here for and what's "allowable".