Laws regarding public breastfeeding

[Hrhpd]

If the woman were bottle-feeding and standing up with her breasts exposed "waiting for someone" you can bet I'd have a whole other opinion. As would anyone. I cannot believe there are people that can find reasonable explanations for unreasonable behavior. There are no reasonable explanations for just exposing yourself in a mall. What about those who expose themselves and don't even have a baby? Is that okay? How is that any different than a man wearing a raincoat and flashing people?

Unless you are in Utah, Tennessee, or Indiana, it is perfectly legal to go topless in the mall. So, while some people may be scandalized by it, the person would be completely within their rights.

I mentioned Scout Willis earlier. I have since looked it up and yes, she walked around NYC topless. There are pictures of her buying fruit from a stand, at a magazine stand and just walking around the town. For her, it was not unreasonable behavior. And it was all perfectly legal.

So, yes, walking around topless is completely different than a man wearing a raincoat and flashing people. Walking around topless is legal. Just like a guy walking around topless is legal. A guy flashing his ***** is not legal, so there lies the difference.

Would I do it? Never in a million years. But I wouldn't blink if somebody else felt like exercising their rights. Maybe if more brave women walked around topless, we could emerge from this puritan society.

 

[tvguy]

Then you need to talk to your HR department to better inform their employees. The Family and Medical Leave Act guarantees job security for leaves up to 12 weeks, if you qualify, to both MEN and women. From what you have posted about your company, your company must offer FMLA.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/topic/benefits-leave/fmla.htm

FMLA applies to all public agencies, all public and private elementary and secondary schools, and companies with 50 or more employees. These employers must provide an eligible employee with up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave each year for any of the following reasons:

• for the birth and care of the newborn child of an employee;
• for placement with the employee of a child for adoption or foster care;
• to care for an immediate family member (spouse, child, or parent) with a serious health condition; or
• to take medical leave when the employee is unable to work because of a serious health condition.

And again, what does FMLA have to do with breastfeeding or how does FMLA make one more sensitive about breast feeding?

No need to talk to HR, yes FMLA does cover men too. One man at my work had a stroke and was out 3 months. Another guy had heart by pass surgery and was medically cleared to return to work in 4 1/2 weeks! That's what makes child birth different, it generally requires much more time off than other medical issues.

 

[tvguy]

Where I live, most mothers get a year's maternity and parenting leave (although it can be shared with the other parent, if they choose). But it's rarely an issue, as usually the company hires someone else to do the work during that year. I guess there is some disruption, because the new person has to be trained, but it's not ever been a big deal where I've worked.

I guess it depends on the job. Last permanent opening we had too 11 months to fill. A temporary job would be nearly impossible. We almost always have to go out of the area to find people with the job skills we need. And no way people are going to give up a job and move for a temporary job.

 

[Planogirl]

Unless you are in Utah, Tennessee, or Indiana, it is perfectly legal to go topless in the mall. So, while some people may be scandalized by it, the person would be completely within their rights.

I mentioned Scout Willis earlier. I have since looked it up and yes, she walked around NYC topless. There are pictures of her buying fruit from a stand, at a magazine stand and just walking around the town. For her, it was not unreasonable behavior. And it was all perfectly legal.

So, yes, walking around topless is completely different than a man wearing a raincoat and flashing people. Walking around topless is legal. Just like a guy walking around topless is legal. A guy flashing his ***** is not legal, so there lies the difference.

Would I do it? Never in a million years. But I wouldn't blink if somebody else felt like exercising their rights. Maybe if more brave women walked around topless, we could emerge from this puritan society.

The malls can certainly set their own dress codes. They are after all privately owned and can set any rules they wish as long as it doesn't affect certain protected classes. Nudists and exhibitionists don't seem to be among those protected classes.

Scout Willis is wacky. She was said to be protesting Instagram not allowing nude photos. Again a private business, their rules.

 

[TaylorEar]

Eh - I personally don't care one way or the other, and I think it's kind of weird that other people would care/even notice. If a mother feels more comfortable using a blanket, or part of her shirt to cover up, great! If a mother feels like popping a boob out (or both) and letting it all hang free, great! I would think (don't know from experience) that in the moment the mother is probably more concerned about her child, than the amount of areola she may be exposing. Who am I to say how somebody should go about it? If I was looking at something that made me feel uncomfortable in any way I would... well, LOOK AWAY. Honestly, I think the real problem is the bizarre hang-ups our society has with female boobs. Are people as uncomfortable/judgmental with man-boobs? I've seen a lot of bare-chested men lounging around pools and backyards who would give me a run for my money in a wet t-shirt contest, and nobody bats an eye.

 

[Disney Doll]

Out of curiosity, what do you consider not discreet? I'm not trying to pick an argument, just trying to understand how much of this debate is just differences in perspective about that. In all my time in VT, which is pretty crunchy, I can't remember ever running into anyone who was not being discreet about BFing.

You didn't ask me but I can give you a pretty good description of "not discreet".

My sister-in-law. Large breasts. To breast feed she would literally take her breast completely out of her shirt and hold it in her hand to get the baby to latch on. Not discreetly unbutton her shirt and latch the baby on. Hold her entire probably size DDD breast completely outside her shirt while she finagled with her breast and the baby to get the 2 to meet.

That, tow, is not discreet. I also think that when your kid is 4 years old and unbuttons your shirt themself to breastfeed, that's not particularly discreet.
Yeah...I've seen that too.

And I realize that these folks are the exception and not the rule but like every other "group", the few ruin it for everyone.

In general most women seem to be discreet.

 

[Disney Doll]

I do agree that kneading a breast is not breastfeeding and would seem to be an extreme behavior, one that should not be done in public. I also agree a public sit-in in a place like Target is ridiculous. There are better ways to make a point than make a bunch of people think you are a crazy radical.

However, I strongly disagree with several posters here that said "be courteous, just cover-up." There is absolutely no need to cover up to feed a baby. All those pictures in the link above show a woman feeding their baby and none of them were covered up. And none were disrespectful or immodest.

I also strongly disagree with other posters that say you need to leave, such as the church example and go to a private place to breast feed. I would think standing up in a church service and leaving the sanctuary would be way more disruptive than just feeding your baby right there. I loved the 19th century picture of the moms openly breastfeeding in church.

If you (general you) are so bothered by a mother feeding her baby uncovered in a restaurant (and not in a booth), on the bus next to you or anywhere you personally deem not appropriate, then that is your (general your) problem. Look away, move away or even leave. But you (general you) have no business deciding what is and what is not appropriate for the other mother as long as she is within the law. And public breastfeeding is legally allowed, uncovered.

The rude person would be the one ogling the mom, giving the stink eye, or generally making a breast feeding mother feel uncomfortable doing what she is legally allowed to do in public.

And just for the record, I am as far from a militant breast feeder as can be as I bottle fed.

You are correct on all points but frankly if I saw some woman standing up in a mall looking around with both breasts hanging out I'd be thinking "whack job". Would I care or get offended? Not really because I've been a nurse for 30+ years so I have seen pretty much every incarnation of whack job that you can think of. So I'd be amused, maybe a bit bemused. I find human behavior outside the general norm to be fascinating.

 

[Disney Doll]

Unless you are in Utah, Tennessee, or Indiana, it is perfectly legal to go topless in the mall. So, while some people may be scandalized by it, the person would be completely within their rights.

I mentioned Scout Willis earlier. I have since looked it up and yes, she walked around NYC topless. There are pictures of her buying fruit from a stand, at a magazine stand and just walking around the town. For her, it was not unreasonable behavior. And it was all perfectly legal.

So, yes, walking around topless is completely different than a man wearing a raincoat and flashing people. Walking around topless is legal. Just like a guy walking around topless is legal. A guy flashing his ***** is not legal, so there lies the difference.

Would I do it? Never in a million years. But I wouldn't blink if somebody else felt like exercising their rights. Maybe if more brave women walked around topless, we could emerge from this puritan society.

Oh dear God. Believe me when I tell you that legal or not, there's no one who's going to want to see these 50+ year d breasts publicly displayed.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

Oh dear God. Believe me when I tell you that legal or not, there's no one who's going to want to see these 50+ year d breasts publicly displayed.

Frankly, on any beach there are plenty of men whose "publicly displayed" chests and bellies are not all that appealing. But they also have every right to be out in their Speedos.

 

[Teresa Pitman]

You didn't ask me but I can give you a pretty good description of "not discreet".

My sister-in-law. Large breasts. To breast feed she would literally take her breast completely out of her shirt and hold it in her hand to get the baby to latch on. Not discreetly unbutton her shirt and latch the baby on. Hold her entire probably size DDD breast completely outside her shirt while she finagled with her breast and the baby to get the 2 to meet.

That, tow, is not discreet. I also think that when your kid is 4 years old and unbuttons your shirt themself to breastfeed, that's not particularly discreet.
Yeah...I've seen that too.

And I realize that these folks are the exception and not the rule but like every other "group", the few ruin it for everyone.

In general most women seem to be discreet.

It sounds to me like your sister-in-law was having some challenges in getting her baby latched on - sometimes women with large breasts do find this more difficult, for various reasons. Especially in the beginning, some women do find it hard to latch the baby on the breast and baby partly covered, or need to support the breast with one hand in order to position it for the baby.

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?

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Public Mea culpa:
As one can tell, I am very passionate on this topic as I do NIP. And I am due very soon with a new baby where I will be once again doing as I did with my other babies. I have always been "discreet" (thank you to who have that grammar correction) in my mind. But I have always been sensitive that it may not always be discreet to others since we all have varying definitions.

That said, I accept full responsibility for taking the thread "off the rails". In an attempt to explain myself, I failed miserably. I do appreciate those who knew where I was coming from but do apologize for any real or perceived twisting of words. It was not my aim to do that--but again, I failed.

I am very sorry to all, but especially to Aaarcher where most of my derailment took place.

 

[lauradis]

That is exactly how my boys were. They did not want anything covering them. I was as discreet as I could be. The problem is the few who are not discreet ruin it for those of us who are. Thankfully I am done with it, but I fully support and will stand up for the right of the moms who do breastfeed. I wish as a society we would just get over it. If you don't want to see a baby feeding, don't look.

I don't see them as a problem.

The problem is the people that twist breastfeed into something sexual.

I have breastfeed our 4 children, when and where the child needed or wanted it. Only one was a blanket feeder, the rest where freebirds.

I wish society would get over it, too.

 

[Hrhpd]

The malls can certainly set their own dress codes. They are after all privately owned and can set any rules they wish as long as it doesn't affect certain protected classes. Nudists and exhibitionists don't seem to be among those protected classes.

Scout Willis is wacky. She was said to be protesting Instagram not allowing nude photos. Again a private business, their rules.

You are absolutely right. If a mall has a no shirt, no shoes, no service rule, it is equally applied to both men and women. However, if a woman is sitting around in a mall with her breasts hanging out and security has not hauled her away, it could be assumed that it is allowed in that mall, just as a shirtless man would be allowed. Because being topless is legal in 47 states, hypothetically, the mall could conceivable decide to allow topless women. Since men being bottomless is illegal in all 50 states, the mall could not ever make a decision to allow bottomless men.

The poster I quoted was saying that being topless is the same as a man flashing people. I was just trying to point out that it is not the same as being topless is legal and being bottomless is never legal.

And yes, I would be thinking somebody is a looney if they were sitting in a mall topless, just because our society norms are much more conservative than most other countries. It just isn't seen much here. But, I would not blink an eye if somebody was sitting there topless and certainly not go to it being the same as a guy flashing somebody, because the act of being topless is legal.

The Willis example was also to say to the poster that said both were exactly the same. No they are not. Scout was legally allowed to walk around topless in NYC. She was not arrested nor was she told to put a shirt on by any authority.

If a guy walked down Central Avenue without pants, he would be arrested immediately.

Being topless and being bottomless are not the same thing.

 

[Hrhpd]

No need to talk to HR, yes FMLA does cover men too. One man at my work had a stroke and was out 3 months. Another guy had heart by pass surgery and was medically cleared to return to work in 4 1/2 weeks! That's what makes child birth different, it generally requires much more time off than other medical issues.

So, you said that you knew of nothing that protects a man's job like FMLA does for women. Yet you admit here that men are out for the full 3 months of FMLA and are protected.

Not sure why you want to derail this thread to discussing FMLA, which you clearly disdain.

You still have not explained how being out on FMLA makes a person more sensitive to breastfeeding.

 

[Hrhpd]

You are correct on all points but frankly if I saw some woman standing up in a mall looking around with both breasts hanging out I'd be thinking "whack job". Would I care or get offended? Not really because I've been a nurse for 30+ years so I have seen pretty much every incarnation of whack job that you can think of. So I'd be amused, maybe a bit bemused. I find human behavior outside the general norm to be fascinating.

I would also think whack job. But as I said, I would not blink an eye because if security is not rounding her up, then you can assume there isn't a no-shirt rule for that mall. That said, I would also think a guy walking around topless in a mall just as much a whackjob just because it is not something people usually do.

I would also be amused, not horrified, at somebody going against social convention.

 

[aaarcher86]

For those that keep mentioning moobs - don't worry. I'm an equal opportunity judger. I've seen my fair share of Frankenstein ***** tits, and I side eye them too.

(No censoring? Ok. I've starred the offensive word myself. You're welcome.)

Public Mea culpa:

I was going to send a personal apology to Aaarcher (hope I spelled that correctly) via PM, but I am struggling logistically with how to do that on my phone.

As one can tell, I am very passionate on this topic as I do NIP. And I am due very soon with a new baby where I will be once again doing as I did with my other babies. I have always been "discreet" (thank you to who have that grammar correction) in my mind. But I have always been sensitive that it may not always be discreet to others since we all have varying definitions.

That said, I accept full responsibility for taking the thread "off the rails". In an attempt to explain myself, I failed miserably. I do appreciate those who knew where I was coming from but do apologize for any real or perceived twisting of words. It was not my aim to do that--but again, I failed.

I am very sorry to all, but especially to Aaarcher where most of my derailment took place.

No problem.

Good luck with your delivery!

 

[Hrhpd]

Oh dear God. Believe me when I tell you that legal or not, there's no one who's going to want to see these 50+ year d breasts publicly displayed.

Mine either. And my thighs are even more scary, so capris are as short as I will go.
But that doesn't mean that I don't celebrate a woman's confidence if she can and would walk around topless. Would I wonder what she had been smoking to get that confidence? Probably, but I would also secretly be jealous that she was confident enough to do it.

 

[aaarcher86]

Mine either. And my thighs are even more scary, so capris are as short as I will go.
But that doesn't mean that I don't celebrate a woman's confidence if she can and would walk around topless. Would I wonder what she had been smoking to get that confidence? Probably, but I would also secretly be jealous that she was confident enough to do it.

And sometimes people genuinely are just attention seeking whores - which indicates a lack of confidence.

 

[penn19]

I have never been to Europe so I don't know the answer to this: Do people over there routinely walk around topless in malls? Men or Women? I would just think topless=beach, pool etc…. But a mall or Church or a restaurant? That doesn't seem puritanical to me. That just seems like having a certain amount of decorum.

You are absolutely right. If a mall has a no shirt, no shoes, no service rule, it is equally applied to both men and women. However, if a woman is sitting around in a mall with her breasts hanging out and security has not hauled her away, it could be assumed that it is allowed in that mall, just as a shirtless man would be allowed. Because being topless is legal in 47 states, hypothetically, the mall could conceivable decide to allow topless women. Since men being bottomless is illegal in all 50 states, the mall could not ever make a decision to allow bottomless men.

The poster I quoted was saying that being topless is the same as a man flashing people. I was just trying to point out that it is not the same as being topless is legal and being bottomless is never legal.

And yes, I would be thinking somebody is a looney if they were sitting in a mall topless, just because our society norms are much more conservative than most other countries. It just isn't seen much here. But, I would not blink an eye if somebody was sitting there topless and certainly not go to it being the same as a guy flashing somebody, because the act of being topless is legal.

The Willis example was also to say to the poster that said both were exactly the same. No they are not. Scout was legally allowed to walk around topless in NYC. She was not arrested nor was she told to put a shirt on by any authority.

If a guy walked down Central Avenue without pants, he would be arrested immediately.

Being topless and being bottomless are not the same thing.

 

[SirDuff]

And sometimes people genuinely are just attention seeking whores - which indicates a lack of confidence.

But if you want to support the rights of one group, you have to support the rights of the other too.

Not saying you don't, just making the comment.