AIBU to think that women should not have to be discreet when breastfeeding?

[lalaland3008]

I'm not saying that anyone should purposely flop both boobs out into someones dinner. But it makes me really mad that some people think women should have to be discreet when feeding their baby, sit in a corner or breastfeeding 'booth'.

I also think a breast is just not comparable to a penis to a vagina and if people are offended because they see breasts as purely sexual then that is their own problem.

Noone would object to me sitting in public drinking my coffee or feeding my baby a bottle of cows milk yet people find breastmilk offensive.

I'm not bitty mad I lasted 2 weeks breastfeeding but it still makes my blood boil that it is seen as controversial by many.

AIBU?

YAdefoNBU I often let my DS go hungry just because I couldn't endure peoples tuts, stares, nodding heads, and outright disaproval verging on disgust. How I wish I had the guts to ignore it all then.

I cannot understand how a woman attempting to breastfeed is in any way seen as a sexual act, or why her doing so, could make anyone whose not a teenager embarrassed or squeamish.

Sparkly really?? I bf mine everywhere and anywhere, no child of mine goes hungry thank you get much.

What a fuss, just feed the baby, I used a silk scarf and didn't show anything much, if people looked I couldn't give a crap, noone really did.

I think all of this chorus of disapproval is la la land and perpetuated by women to justify bf!!! Joking I am!!!

Noone cares ffs. Whose l

Sparkly where do you live and where did you go to meet all this disapproval?? Really intrigued.

Do people really look and stare and tut at breastfeeders. Not sure I even notice them?

I have breastfed in all sorts of places: public squares, busy trains, bus stations, Winchester Cathedral. The only place I was ever asked to leave was the waiting room of the paediatric ward

The way the nurse phrased it it was about my feeling more comfortable in a more secluded place, but she didn't seem to hear me when I cheerfully assured her that I was quite comfortable where I was and not at all embarrassed...

Poor whatmeworry... On every bf thread there is you jump in and display that massive chip in your shoulder. Oh and nipples are perfectly fine for babies - another example of you spouting about something you know nothing about. Really, you need to let go of all this defensiveness you have over breastfeeding.

hackmum I don't know the name of the Fallada book in English; in German it is called Damals bei uns daheim. It is about his childhood in Berlin.

I don't agree with women being put in a corner or a specific room. We went out to a pub with a friend and her newborn baby, friend needed to feed the baby so got her breast out. She lifted her top down iykwim so the whole breast was on display, I was embarrassed and that is as a mum who breastfed both her children. This was in the middle of a busy pub garden. It was not necessary for her to get the whole breast out when she could of lifted her top up and done the same job. Maybe I am being unreasonable but that was how I felt, she obviously however felt very comfortable with it so each to their own I guess.

Flossie, it's not your fault you felt uncomfortable, and your friend did what felt comfortable to her, just as you say....and there may be many reasons why a mother might feel more comfortable that way. You say her baby was a newborn - maybe she needed to see more of the attachment to get it right, maybe the baby did not feed well with fabric near his face, maybe she had not yet learnt the skill of managing clothing in the way you suggest.

Or maybe she was being ridiculously exhibitionist - who cares??!

All sorts of people bf - the shy, the loud, the show offs, the modest, the embarrassed, the awkward, the smooth, the newbies and the oldies.

It matters not a jot. Breasts in the act of feeding are no more inherently sexual than hands are in the act of , um, slicing bread, or feet are in the act of walking, or a mouth/tongue is in the act of speaking...and all of those body parts can be used in a sexual way, as we know :)

I sometimes used to hoik the top down. It was to hide the massive, scarred (from CS) wobbly, stretch-marked stomach. My breasts were still in reasonably good nick so I assumed they would be less offensive. My DD wouldn't put up with a muslin or scarf.

tictok I think she was an exhibitionist, she had the most fab breasts! :)

I suppose I feed discreetly, in that I arrange my clothing to expose a minimal amount of flesh, although mostly that is because of a different pressure of society - that of having rather too much coverage all over and no wish to expose flab rolls.

However, I fed my DS proudly and all over the place. My ex-h was very proud and comfortable with it. My friends never made me feel awkward. It simply never occurred to me that anyone would have a problem with it.

This time, with my DP, it is completely different because he is not comfortable with it. He knows it's irrational. I have tried so hard to make him understand and he does agree that it's best for DD, but he really would rather I didn't do it in public at all. This is despite him coming onto the ward the morning after she was born and not even realising I was feeding her until I told him.

Wherever we go he says: 'You're not going to feed DD in xx place are you?'. As if it would be totally beyond the pale. He has suggested that I go into toilets to do it. He has made me hide behind trees while he 'kept a lookout' as if I was doing a sneaky wee.

He says that all of his male friends feel the same way. He says most men are uncomfortable with it (I don't know how he knows most men). He was horrified when I went to stay with my father and fed DD in the same room.

To be honest, the thought that might have the same attitude as him makes me really uncomfortable and I wish he was more supportive. I don't want him to feel embarrassed, but I have always been so pro-breastfeeding and believe that it's a good thing to do it as much as possible to normalise it. If more people were brave enough to be less discreet, I think we could start to undo some of this.

Yeah, we all have fab breasts when we were BFing a newborn. In retrospect, I should have got them out more often as no one would want to look at them now.

Poor whatmeworry... On every bf thread there is you jump in and display that massive chip in your shoulder. Oh and nipples are perfectly fine for babies - another example of you spouting about something you know nothing about. Really, you need to let go of all this defensiveness you have over breastfeeding

Blimey - second ad hominem on the thread just for disagreeing wit the BF mafia - ho hum.

By the way, IF you had ever read any of the evolutionary biology behind what we we were discussing at the time upthread, you would know that not only is the hum,an braest unique among mammals (ie irs form does not follow thu pure function of baby gfeeding) but so is the nipple, the "correct" shape of - for mammals - is a longer teat.

But you haven't, and don't, so I'm afraid its you who is the one who knows nothing.

Whatme - please don't suggest another poster needs to read about evolutionary biology when you yourself come out with this gem in response to an observation that our breasts are not like other mammals:

"Probably means that feeding children is not their primary purpose anymore".

Just how quickly do you think evolutionary change happens?

Biologically, our breasts are there to feed babies - primary purpose, no doubt about it.

It will take a few more thousand years of bottle feeding for that to change, and for a few zillion more mothers not to breastfeed at all.

Don't worr tiktok, I don't take any notice of the defensive rubbish whatme writes, she obviously has issues about breastfeeding so I simply smile and leave her to it. I don't let insignificant 'views' like hers bother me - I simply let them amuse me.

Agree tiktok. It was I with the evolutionary biology earlier. My point was NOT that the primary function of the breast is not feeding just that one of it's functions is sexual. There are a great deal of things that are dual purpose and evolution doesn't order them numerically. For example, the penis is used for sex and for urination. Without it doing one or the other the human race would die out. Which is it's 'primary' function? Neither. It has two functions. Your neck protects both your windpipe and blood supply. No primary function.

Evolution is a process and the weird anthropomorphising people like to do is to misunderstand that. Evolution doesn't think, judge, order or 'do' anything. Breasts feed babies and children. Usefully for our continued survival as a species I would imagine. They are also nice to look at. Possibly slightly increases the baby-making. Also good for survival.

Actually, the ability to produce milk might never change. There has to be an evolutionary advantage to losing the ability to BF and I can't imagine what that would be. If we all bottle fed, our ability to produce milk would probably stick around for ever. If breasts stop attracting men, though, there would be an evolutionary advantage to getting rid. They are heavy and cost calories to maintain, so that is actually more likely.

In summation, I got my breasts out to feed DD, and if I was having any more I would do it again.

Tiktok - also isn't it amazing that you have to state such an obvious fact - that our breasts are there to feed our young - for some people?!
And amazingly enough, my nipples fed - still feed - my daughter breast milk incredibly well!

I am breastfeeding my almost 6 month old Dd - but I've never done it in public... That's because of my own insecurities really - but I LOVE seeing other mums breastfeeding in public. I try - if it's not weird awkward to give them a smile as it's amazing and no one should feel uncomfortable about doing it.

Whatme, you are patronising.

Not a salient point in an argument, just statement of fact. One which I have noticed you carefully ignoring :o ill leave you to it, carry on calling people obtuse or whatever it is you're pulling out

' the nipple, the "correct" shape of - for mammals - is a longer teat'

So are you suggesting that women breast now are unsuitable for feeding? That our nipples are shorter?

Huh? Some people find it easier to pull clothing down, others up. I have done both.

Also, whatme - I can assure you that a baby is capable of pulling out a nipple so that it is a lot longer than a nipple in it's "resting" state.

Also having breastfed for just over three and a half years my nipples are significantly more pointy now than they ever used to be

Evolution is a process and the weird anthropomorphising people like to do is to misunderstand that.

Sadly, you show your own misunderstanding when you write the self contradictory...

There has to be an evolutionary advantage to losing the ability to BF and I can't imagine what that would be. If we all bottle fed, our ability to produce milk would probably stick around for ever. If breasts stop attracting men, though, there would be an evolutionary advantage to getting rid. They are heavy and cost calories to maintain, so that is actually more likely.

...in that breasts do exist as large, heavy things that cost calories to maintain already, and have done for aeons, so theer is clearly an evolutionary advantage to keeping them. And, if they were purely for baby feeding they would look like a bottle teat attached to a fried egg chest, as with all the other apes. Ergo, because they cost resources and are for display, much like the peacocks tail, their primary function has probably (thats's the word I used - probably - not "has definitely") shifted.

So are you suggesting that women breast now are unsuitable for feeding? That our nipples are shorter?

I'm not suggesting it, its a fact when compared to all other mammals, and no doubt part of the reason humans struggle to BF more than other mammals. We have made tradeoff against baby-feeding and for other purposes with our breasts.

Whatme, you are patronising

Meh, you've called me that 3 times now, but resorting to ad hominems is usually a sign that you have no more intellectual input to make to the discussion.

Thanks, Cory. Doesn't seem to be available in English, sadly, so will either have to take a crash course in German or wait for a translation!

whatme - calling someone "patronising" isn't an ad hominem.

whatme - calling someone "patronising" isn't an ad hominem

Wikipedia - An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it.

QED.