Laws regarding public breastfeeding

[JanaDee]

It is not perfectly legal to go topless in all state except the three stated. In WA it is not illegal but it is not legal either. Legal means you have the right to go topless. There is no law in WA state that says it is LEGAL.

Washington State Code

The statute used most often in the State of Washington for prosecuting cases of nudity (simple or otherwise) is the Indecent Exposure statute, RCW 9A.88.010 and I’m going to quote part of it here as I think an understanding of this statute is very important as it affects nudists:

RCW 9A.88.010
Indecent exposure.

(1) A person is guilty of indecent exposure if he or she intentionally makes any open and obscene exposure of his or her person or the person of another knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm. The act of breastfeeding or expressing breast milk is not indecent exposure.

In order to make a charge of indecent exposure, and to have it stand in court, all elements above have to be met:

1. An OPEN and OBSCENE EXPOSURE
2. That it was done INTENTIONALLY, and
3. That it likely would cause reasonable AFFRONT or ALARM

Whether you intentionally get naked with the knowledge that it is probably going to cause affront or alarm, the expression still has to be an ‘obscene exposure’. There is a lot of confusion even in the law enforcement community over the difference between what we call ‘simple nudity’ and ‘obscene exposure’. For most police officers, just the fact that you are nude is often enough for them to consider it obscene and arrest you . . . leaving it to the courts and prosecutor to sort the charging elements out. Of course, it costs you time and money, and sometimes your reputation, to defend yourself.


Much more onerous is that a police officer in the State of Washington does not need a warrant to make an arrest for indecent exposure . . . just probable cause and a complaint. Most misdemeanor offenses are cited and the individual sent on his or her way with a promise to show up in court (RCW 10.31.100: Arrest Without Warrant). Knowing that previous arrests for simple nudism under the Indecent Exposure statute rarely stand up (unless you plea the charge), the police have learned that as soon as they have one complaint this statute allows them to get the ‘offending’ person off the street with no repercussions. Immediate problem solved and the ‘perp’ is quietly released at the precinct a few hours later.

So before you go to the store in your birthday suit you better check your State, county and city laws! It states the act of breastfeeding or expressing milk is not obscene, but I wouldn't doubt there are some things you could do while breastfeeding that could get you into trouble with the law as it is written.

https://nudehiker.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/nudity-and-the-law-in-washington-state/

I agree with you, but can you imagine the backlash from the PC crowd if it was claimed a woman was arrested for breastfeeding in public (regardless of what the truth of the matter was)?

 

[Teresa Pitman]

So far, all the discussion seems to be about mothers breast feeding infants. What would the reaction be if the mom was feeding her 6 year old in public, like in that Time magazine cover from a few years ago?

The little boy breastfeeding on the cover of Time magazine was four, not six. Although certainly some six-year-olds are still breastfeeding, too. I don't know how other people would react, but it certainly wouldn't bother me. The World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding for two years and beyond (with no upper limit), and the Canadian Pediatric Society has the same recommendation. The AAP recommends breastfeeding for at least a year and continuing "as long as mutually desired by mother and child" and add "there is no known point at which breastmilk becomes nutritionally negligible." So a mother breastfeeding a four-year-old or six-year-old is simply following the recommendations of major professional health organizations.

In my experience, most older children are able to wait until they are not in public. But sometimes if you have a child who is stressed or overtired or hungry, nursing might be the best way to prevent a meltdown. The good news for those who don't like to see breasts is that a four-year-old's big head will pretty much cover the entire breast from your view while he's nursing.

I read an interesting article about breastfeeding in Mongolia, where mothers are encouraged to breastfeed six-year-olds. I hope I can link it here:
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/07/breastfeeding-in-land-of-genghis-khan.html

 

[JanaDee]

It won't let me edit my post, but the same thing the OP is about is what would happrn. Virtual lynch mobs for any perceived injustice are now how this country operates.

 

[Fluffy Marie]

OK, but let me say what many others are thinking - being free to run around 1/2 nekked is a DUMB right to have and even dumber to exercise it.

My neighbor does his yardwork shirtless during the summer. If I did the same thing, I would probably get arrested for "indecent exposure."

 

[ronandannette]

My neighbor does his yardwork shirtless during the summer. If I did the same thing, I would probably get arrested for "indecent exposure."

Would you seriously want to pull weeds, prune shrubs and mow your lawn with your breasts dangling?

 

[aaarcher86]

The little boy breastfeeding on the cover of Time magazine was four, not six. Although certainly some six-year-olds are still breastfeeding, too. I don't know how other people would react, but it certainly wouldn't bother me. The World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding for two years and beyond (with no upper limit), and the Canadian Pediatric Society has the same recommendation. The AAP recommends breastfeeding for at least a year and continuing "as long as mutually desired by mother and child" and add "there is no known point at which breastmilk becomes nutritionally negligible." So a mother breastfeeding a four-year-old or six-year-old is simply following the recommendations of major professional health organizations.

In my experience, most older children are able to wait until they are not in public. But sometimes if you have a child who is stressed or overtired or hungry, nursing might be the best way to prevent a meltdown. The good news for those who don't like to see breasts is that a four-year-old's big head will pretty much cover the entire breast from your view while he's nursing.

I read an interesting article about breastfeeding in Mongolia, where mothers are encouraged to breastfeed six-year-olds. I hope I can link it here:
http://www.drmomma.org/2009/07/breastfeeding-in-land-of-genghis-khan.html

Never really understood comparisons to developing countries.

 

[tzolkin]

Would there have been a way for the four-year-old to breastfeed that you would have considered discreet? Or is it just the fact that the child was four that you consider inappropriate?

Age is probably the biggest breast feeding taboo.

I have found that most people (including many medical professionals) consider any mother who BFs a child beyond an "acceptable" age (usually one year) is considered a sexual deviant and assumptions about the child's future sexuality are also made.

People are uncomfortable with seeing a two or three year old nursing, not because they are doing so in a manner any less discreet than an infant, but because it is viewed as an act that goes against cultural norms. Often the reaction is that it is "disgusting" or "perverted"


Just as a side note since several people have mentioned it, if you look up the infamous Time magazine cover/article, the nursing child was three. Every time I have heard anyone speak about it the child is always claimed to be 5 or 6 (just as other posters have mentioned). Doubling the child's age just serves to make it seem more shocking and inappropriate.

 

[rharper1496]

Would you seriously want to pull weeds, prune shrubs and mow your lawn with your breasts dangling?

I don't know, the guy down the street has a pretty sizeable rack and he has no problem doing yard work or walking the dog with his breasts dangling.

 

[ronandannette]

I don't know, the guy down the street has a pretty sizeable rack and he has no problem doing yard work or walking the dog with his breasts dangling.

What do you mean you don't know - it's a simple question. Regardless of what the guy down the street does, if you are a woman do you really want to perform mundane, everyday tasks in a public setting without your shirt on. Yes or no?

Of course the question is absurd and I posed it that way specifically to emphasize how ridiculous the rhetoric on this issue becomes. I'm amazed that people feel so strongly about "having rights" they would never, ever exercise...

 

[aaarcher86]

Age is probably the biggest breast feeding taboo.

I have found that most people (including many medical professionals) consider any mother who BFs a child beyond an "acceptable" age (usually one year) is considered a sexual deviant and assumptions about the child's future sexuality are also made.

People are uncomfortable with seeing a two or three year old nursing, not because they are doing so in a manner any less discreet than an infant, but because it is viewed as an act that goes against cultural norms. Often the reaction is that it is "disgusting" or "perverted"


Just as a side note since several people have mentioned it, if you look up the infamous Time magazine cover/article, the nursing child was three. Every time I have heard anyone speak about it the child is always claimed to be 5 or 6 (just as other posters have mentioned). Doubling the child's age just serves to make it seem more shocking and inappropriate.

Well, even the poster you quoted said the kid was 4. This article was how long ago?

I won't post the picture to avoid any issue, but looking it up... That kid just doesn't look 3 to me. Maybe my kids looked young at that age. That kid looks like a first grader.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

What do you mean you don't know - it's a simple question. Regardless of what the guy down the street does, if you are a woman do you really want to perform mundane, everyday tasks in a public setting without your shirt on. Yes or no?

Of course the question is absurd and I posed it that way specifically to emphasize how ridiculous the rhetoric on this issue becomes. I'm amazed that people feel so strongly about "having rights" they would never, ever exercise...

Because those rights do matter to some. I will never marry someone of the same sex, but I believe it is important that I have that right (and I'm glad to live in Canada where I do). I might not do yardwork topless (although there are women who do) but if I want to, why shouldn't I be able to? It's not harming anyone.

 

[gwynne]

Well, even the poster you quoted said the kid was 4. This article was how long ago?

I won't post the picture to avoid any issue, but looking it up... That kid just doesn't look 3 to me. Maybe my kids looked young at that age. That kid looks like a first grader.

I agree. I went back and looked for articles, it appears the kid was photographed about a month before turning 4 years old.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

And you are right, the boy on the Time cover is only three! I think he was deliberately dressed to look older.

 

[ronandannette]

Age is probably the biggest breast feeding taboo.

I have found that most people (including many medical professionals) consider any mother who BFs a child beyond an "acceptable" age (usually one year) is considered a sexual deviant and assumptions about the child's future sexuality are also made.

People are uncomfortable with seeing a two or three year old nursing, not because they are doing so in a manner any less discreet than an infant, but because it is viewed as an act that goes against cultural norms. Often the reaction is that it is "disgusting" or "perverted"


Just as a side note since several people have mentioned it, if you look up the infamous Time magazine cover/article, the nursing child was three. Every time I have heard anyone speak about it the child is always claimed to be 5 or 6 (just as other posters have mentioned). Doubling the child's age just serves to make it seem more shocking and inappropriate.

Sexual deviancy? Probably not, but let's be honest. In the western world there is absolutely NO need to nurse a 3+ child to meet nutritional requirements. It then becomes much more a matter of a visceral experience between mother and child and it absolutely IS a form of emotional and physical intimacy that many are uncomfortable witnessing. Whether or not it's appropriate and healthy would depend very much on the people involved. Whether it's an experience more appropriately shared in private? I think so.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

View attachment 79379

Never really understood comparisons to developing countries.

I think the value in reading about how breastfeeding happens in other countries is that it reminds us that there are other ways to look at issues like when to wean and breastfeeding in public.

 

[tzolkin]

Well, even the poster you quoted said the kid was 4. This article was how long ago?

I won't post the picture to avoid any issue, but looking it up... That kid just doesn't look 3 to me. Maybe my kids looked young at that age. That kid looks like a first grader.

The poster I quoted was responding to another poster who said its indiscreet for a 4 year old to nurse in public. They were not referring to the Time magazine article. I brought up the article in a separate part of my post. Other posters (who I did not quote) mentioned the child being 5 and another 6. I was referring both to those posters as well as people I have heard talk about the photo IRL.

It doesn't really matter how old people "think" he looks. The article (as well as other articles referencing the article/photo) indicates clearly that he was 3. That was kind of my point-- people think it looks inappropriate, so they feel the need to exaggerate the age to make their gut reaction seem more justified.

 

[ronandannette]

Because those rights do matter to some. I will never marry someone of the same sex, but I believe it is important that I have that right (and I'm glad to live in Canada where I do). I might not do yardwork topless (although there are women who do) but if I want to, why shouldn't I be able to? It's not harming anyone.

Where? Are we talking about developing nations again?

Is being enjoined by law NOT to do it harming anyone? Other than imposing on your desire to have complete, unrestricted freedom to do anything imaginable (also called anarchy, BTW)?

 

[rharper1496]

What do you mean you don't know - it's a simple question. Regardless of what the guy down the street does, if you are a woman do you really want to perform mundane, everyday tasks in a public setting without your shirt on. Yes or no?

Of course the question is absurd and I posed it that way specifically to emphasize how ridiculous the rhetoric on this issue becomes. I'm amazed that people feel so strongly about "having rights" they would never, ever exercise...

First off, I've never done yard work topless but I have breastfed in public and it's nice to know there are laws in place (several, in fact) that would protect me should someone decide to throw a fit about it.

The I don't know was more about the fact that since I've never done it I can't tell how how comfortable it would be but obviously there are some people out there who do find it perfectly comfortable. There are also millions of small chested women who could walk around topless without anything dangling and and be perfectly comfortable doing so.

 

[aaarcher86]

The poster I quoted was responding to another poster who said its indiscreet for a 4 year old to nurse in public. They were not referring to the Time magazine article. I brought up the article in a separate part of my post. Other posters (who I did not quote) mentioned the child being 5 and another 6. I was referring both to those posters as well as people I have heard talk about the photo IRL.

It doesn't really matter how old people "think" he looks. The article (as well as other articles referencing the article/photo) indicates clearly that he was 3. That was kind of my point-- people think it looks inappropriate, so they feel the need to exaggerate the age to make their gut reaction seem more justified.

Well, I'm someone that said he was older (maybe 5?) because I just pulled up a memory of the photo. I'm simply stressing the fact that people aren't adding to the age for justification - I can't even remember why I mentioned it in the first place. If he's younger, okay cool.

I don't really know what you're defending in the quote system? The poster you quoted said the kid was 4. Even someone defending the article is getting the age wrong and they don't have anything to justify with it either.

 

[rharper1496]

And you are right, the boy on the Time cover is only three! I think he was deliberately dressed to look older.

He was posed to look older as well. I know plenty of mothers who have nursed toddlers and not one has done it with a child standing on a chair.