echidna

Let’s be clear, there is nothing more offensive than animal nudity.

Kudos to the late and great Walt Disney for being at the forefront of decency. While Donald’s half sailor suit was too risqué for its time, Mickey’s full genital coverage definitely made him an appropriate children’s icon.

Monkeybot

<a href="http://www.aap.org/policy/re9729.html" target="_blank">American Academy of Pediatrics: Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk</a>

Furthermore, the World Health Organization and UNICEF also co-sponsored the 1990 <a href="http://www.infactcanada.ca/innocenti_declaration.htm" target="_blank">Innocenti Declaration</a>, which affirms these two organizations' position that breastfeeding is a positive and healthy choice - and one that should be promoted where necessary.

Is this good enough for you?

If infants are not fed on demand, it can be extremely detrimental to both mother and child. Breastmilk provides antibodies from the mothers' own body, giving the infant vitally important protection against diseases. Furthermore, attempting to go against the infant's need to feed can disrupt the flow of milk to the mother's breasts (as it signals to the body that milk is no longer needed). This can in turn disrupt the entire breastfeeding cycle, denying the child the nutrients mentioned above.

In short, yes, the infant needs to feed when it is hungry. Would you forbid a hungry person from eating under any other circumstances? Why on earth would the presence of a female breast make it any different? Note that we are not talking about not giving food to a hungry person; we are talking about simply forbidding another person to eat, period.

You and the dictionary may call it a "want" or a "preference" if you like. However, to my mind, since not feeding a hungry baby can have negative effects on the health of both mother and child, breastfeeding goes beyond a mere "preference."

I think Glory took care of this pretty nicely, but it bears repeating: Would you eat lunch in a public restroom? Why would you expect a baby to, especially considering the child's weaker immune system?

[ September 22, 2002: Message edited by: Monkeybot ]</p>

Jane Bovary

Well I know babies don't have as much cognitive control. But the mother does. And someone doesn't have to hear the whelp shriek if the mom is polite enough to take it into the restroom instead of giving all around her the unpleasant site of her nursing her pup.

Well it might be nice if there were easy access to private, comfortable facilities everywhere, for mothers to feed their babies in public places...but there's not. So what is the mother to do? Slink into some grimy public lavatory to feed her child? Most women are discreet when feeding publically and unless you really go out of your way to peer, I don't understand why it should really bother anyone. Personally, I think there's something very calming and gentle about a mother breastfeeing her baby. Obviously you don't...well there's always people who will be offended by something. Just too bad I'd say.


We are also talking about the difference between someone who is going to die from lack of food, from a baby that simply has to wait a bit.

Do you know the real consequences of a baby who has to "wait a bit"? A screaming, distressed infant, a stressed out mother...a bursting breast...discomfort all around. And for what? I just don't get it. What is it that you find so "unpleasant" about a lactating mother? Is it the brief glimpse of pale flesh you might get? The sucking concept? Or is it the reminder of our animal reality?

Unfortunately it's that sort of public aversion that puts some mothers off breastfeeding, either all together or so that they cut it short and switch to a bottle prematurely.

We should be encouraging mothers to breastfeed, wherever and whenever necessary...not something you have to run away and do undercover...isolating yourself from the general hub bub.

Why should a few "delicate doily's" set the standard...?


In any case I attribute all this thought to prejudice against sex, seeing sex as partly "immoral", and "unimportant" or at least less important then "sacred" motherhood. One is no more "sacred" then the other in my eyes. A need for immediate sexual gratification is just as legitimate as a need for immediate feeding. Only old ladies of both sexes would say otherwise.

I think you would have to allow that a lot more people would be offended by public sex than public breastfeeding. Old ladies or not. Why even compare sex and breastfeeding? One is not more "sacred" than the other. What are you saying here...that if we allow public breastfeeding we should allow public sex? Otherwise we're prejudiced? Does it then follow if we allow public sex and not public excretion we are then prejudiced against excretion?

Glory

</strong>

Primal thinks he can blur the differences between breast feeding, sex, and defication. It's called equivocation. Apparantly he thinks we're stupid.

Glory

echidna

Firstly our law asks where the action has occurred.

If it has occurred in the full privacy of the offender’s (literal meaning) property, then it would seem OK & one would ask why the offendee was there at all & whether they have the right to even make such a complaint.

But if the action occurs in a public place owned by neither. Then one must appeal to an independent arbitrator, typically an impartial law, as reflected by the general morality of the population. And yes, in a democracy it comes down to the muscle of the majority. Not perfect but hey, better that than the muscle of the clerics.

Of course it gets a bit tricky when sensual “property” is considered, say the offender is masturbating on their front lawn next to the primary school, or playing the stereo at 11 at midnight. In this instance I have little difficulty with the law considering that consideration should extend beyond just geographical.

Impossible details aside, it seems to work AFAICS. There's not many of us who aren't offended by something or other. Hell a friend of mine goes into panic attack if someone so much as mentions a preying mantis ...

Pomp

Glory,

Primal thinks he can blur the differences between breast feeding, sex, and defication. It's called equivocation. Apparantly he thinks we're stupid.

I don't know if I'd phrase it quite so harshly. All three activities do share several obvious features (i.e. they involve parts of the human anatomy that are usually covered, and they involve the excretion of some materal from those parts) in common. It's valid to argue that there are extenuating circumstances (i.e. a baby's need to eat, or the possibility that public defecation may spread disease) in some of those cases, but I'd hardly call it equivocation to lump the three together in a broad category.

Personally, my preference is not to have babies breastfed where I can see but, then again, my preference is also not to have, for example, shirtless men walking around where I can see either, and I don't feel strongly enough about either to do anything more serious than leave the area, and then only if it's convenient. I'm not comfortable around naked people, but I don't see the value in trying to keep them clothed when there is no pressing health reason for it.

DarkDruid

I guess all of these issues just boil down to the old social contract thing. If you want to live in a society, abide by its rules. Otherwise leave or suffer people staring or publicly chastizing you.

As far as breast feeding is concerned, I'm not too terribly offended by it if it looks like the mother is at least *trying* to spare us the sight of her little hellbeast sucking out her fluids. Hell, I was publicly breastfed for much of my babyhood. I get offended when it looks like a mother just acts like its her God-given right to whip out a tit and have the whelp suck away.

Sometimes my crotch itches, but I don't just stand in the middle of a room and scratch away for the same reason a mother should at least make an attempt to be discreate. Not everyone wants to see it.

Glory

</strong>

Are you saying that you would react the same way to someone shitting on the street in front of you as you would to a woman feeding her child? Primal accuses society of being hippocritical for allowing public breast feeding while disallowing public defication and public sex. In order for that to be true one would have to believe that the behaviours are comparable. Clearly the existence of public restrooms stands as one testament that they are not the same.

If breast feeding were such a problem, why are there no facilities for it? It is recognised as a necessity, like voiding one's bowels, yet there aren't any breastfeeding rooms in restaurants or malls or public parks. It seems to me that this may be because there is a big difference between aeting and shitting. Does breast feeding cause a stench? Does breastfeeding cause a health risk if not done in the right place? Is anything left behind after mother and child leave the area?

Breastfeeding and shitting are not simmilar and to suggest that they are for the purpose of winning an argument is equivocation.

In essence, I agree with this.

Glory

[ September 23, 2002: Message edited by: Glory ]</p>

Pomp

Glory,

Are you saying that you would react the same way to someone shitting on the street in front of you as you would to a woman feeding her child?

It depends on what you mean by "react." In either case, my immediate reaction would be to avert my eyes. Beyond that, however, of course I would react differently. As I've said, there are extenuating circumstances. Personally, I'm not any more distrbed by the sight of someone defecating than I am by the site of someone breast feeding, but I'm far more willing to act against the former (in the form of laws, social disapproval, etc.) because of the several reasons already covered in this thread, primarily that public defecation is more likely to spread disease and that babies need to eat. IOW, I don't particularly want to watch either, but I recognize that there are good reasons why the latter might be done in public.

Primal accuses society of being hippocritical for allowing public breast feeding while disallowing public defication and public sex. In order for that to be true one would have to believe that the behaviours are comparable. Clearly the existence of public restrooms stands as one testament that they are not the same.

Yeah. And there's no public sex room, so we ought to be able to do it in the road.

(That was intended solely for humour value, btw. No disagreement with your statement is implied.)

Breastfeeding and shitting are not simmilar and to suggest that they are for the purpose of winning an argument is equivocation.


Well, again, I disagree. While I don't buy primal's argument that it is somehow hypocritical to allow the one and not the other, I do think that there are several obvious similarities (namely, they are both excretory functions involving normally concealed body parts that many people would rather not watch) between the two, and I don't think that he is equivocating.

IMO, it would be a more effective counter-argument to simply admit that there are similarities and then focus on the extenuating details. For example, if someone were to claim that it was hypocritical to approve of killing in self-defense but not killing in general, we wouldn't waste our breath protesting that that person was equivocating, and that killing in self-defense is not at all similar to other forms of killing, we would point out the extenuating circumstances that make killing in self-defense an exception to the general rule against killing. Likewise, I think we ought to point out (as many of you have been doing, you included, Glory) the extenuating circumstances that make breast feeding an exception to the general rule against performing excretory functions in public.

Anyway, I was only nitpicking your statement about equivocation, and I don't think you and I have any substantive disagreement. I'll shut up now.

Plebe

The only things "Wrong with Nudity" come from personal experience. The first times I went to public nudist areas the only thing physically wrong with nudity that I could find was my own initial self consciousness and the lack of protection to my body from nature-ie:the sun[use lots of sunscreen on chest and allover-no fun to have burned nipples!]scratches from weeds, bushes, rocks and the occasional mosquito bites and no matter what, I still had to wear tennis shoes to wander around in creek beds or risk serious injury to my feet! Socially, nudity eliminates boundaries normally set by modes of dress which identify social status and also eliminate other sub-textual perceptions related to the clothing. As far as bodily imperfections go, I think nudity compels nudists to accept the fact that we are all together in having bodily imperfections and frees nudists to be more accepting of their fellow man for a time that is not the norm in the clothed world, it gives one a feeling of community with the human race that is not normally afforded in everyday life.
I enjoy nudism as well for the freedoms I can enjoy in nature unencumbered by clothing despite the vulnerability of my skin to some of the harshness as well because of the feeling it gives that I am just as much a part of nature as any other creature. I do however prefer most of my life to be conducted in the clothed world most likely because I have been socially conditioned to function that way but surely, if I were to live in a nudist colony like any other learned phenomenon my social conditioning would change with time. For now, I think it is a truism that there is a time and a place for everything so the only things that can be wrong with nudity would be those which infringe on appropriateness for time and place!