Domitianus

Dom mouths "Guess we can't agree on everything" and returns Tippex.

Some wise words there ChavWivaLawDegree. I am certainly not trying to tell anyone what to do or not to do in public. I am pointing out that when one is in a public place there are the feelings of others to consider and that, certainly from the postings on this board, there are at least a significant number of people who feel that in certain environments BFing is something that causes discomfort and embarrassment. If people wish to ignore that fact and continue to assert their "right to breast-feed" whilst trampelling over the rights of others to be able to eat, drink, purchase food etc without being confronted by something that they might feel a bit distatsteful then they will be able to do so but can't really complain if other people think they are being b***dy selfish and anti-social. There are a great many things that people have the freedom and the right to do but who perhaps voluntarily waive that right in defference to other people's sensibilities. Things such as f***ing, burping, spitting and cursing might be fine between a bunch of friends in a pub corner but might be toned down a bit if a woman joined the group or if a Salvation Army collector passed their table selling the Watchtower (do they still do that?) AfricanQueen mentions the fact that in her home country BFing is completely normal and so is vilification of homosexuality. Whilst I disagree strongly with the latter persecution she nonethless makes an interesting point and that is one of context. Behaviour that may be generally encouraged and acceptable in certain places (for example, one country or culture)is not necessarily universally appropriate. Someone mentioned earlier that folk will be jetting off on holiday to sunnier cimes where breasts will be on display left right and centre. EXACTLY! It is appropriate in some locations but not on others and from my own holidays abroad I can say that whilst it may be acceptable to go topless on the beach (and I am very happy to see such toplessness - oh no, there are my Oedipal "issues" popping out again!), one would be expected to dress more conservatively in the hotel or street. Context is paramount. Go to Brighton and you can frolick naked on the nudist beach but go up and down the Lanes in the nude and you will get arrested. If people wish to flaunt their right to BF anywhere they choose, then I can't do anything about it. But if that's in front of me when I am in Nero or wherever, sure as H**L don't expect me to smile, pretend to condone it, pretend to be impressed or avert my gaze. And if I choose to play my MP3 at high volume, fart, burp or pick my nose, don't expect to get a sympathetic response if you ask me to stop!

Please do.

Points out that Laura Ashley dress notwithstanding, Domitianus is actually a 'he' and that DM has again misunderstood the subtleties afoot in prtevious postings.

Perhaps Verona, if you look at the full thread you will see I have actually been responding to points and allegations made by others. I think the only "confession" I have made is that I think there is a time and place for BFing and that I like women's breasts. I am quite happy to get these two matters off my chest(again, no pun intended). Perhaps your comments could also be addressed to the others who have joined in this debate?

Back to snuff! When I was a poor pissed-up student I was introduced to snuff by a mature student who used to work as the curator of a railway museum and who wore a velvet waistcoat and had a proper old-fashioned pocket watch. Dr Romney's Special was the brand although I also took to McCrystals. Cheaper brands were like sniffing ground glass. Unfortunately my consumption of this marvellously heady substance increased to the extent that it caused inflammation of the linings of my nose and eventually nose-bleeds! That was when I decided to pack it in. Was fun for a while though if you don't mind having to launder vast quantities of stained handkerchiefs. I remember reading that Dr Samuel Johnson was a great snuffer and actually had leather linings sewn into his pockets to obviate the need to actually use a tin. He would simply dip his mit into his coat pocket and grab a pinch off the stuff. A pleasant chap offered to sell me a snuff movie the other day and I thought I might take him up on it to remind me of the old days. Any thoughts on a reasonable price?

My position on Americans is that I have rarely met an individual American who was not very amiable and often likeable - it's just when you put them together as a nation the sum is LESS than the whole of its parts. There seems to be a slight disconnecion from reality present in the American nation, almost as if the 'tracking' wasn't quite right. I am amazed at how this seems to exist as they are not exactly backward or isolated from the rest of the word. Their take on situations and the world they live in seems to possess a quality of confusion and unreality that sits strangely at odds with their technological and financial sophistication. Almost like watching a child whose physical development has outstripped its emotional and psychological maturity by many years.

Oh...and...I never for one moment suggested that the world revolves around me. Unfortunately there are those who seem to think that the world revolves around pregnant women and mothers of small children to the extent that everyone else's interests are expected to take second place to the afore-mentioned who are regarded as being beyond reproach and above criticism. It's a bloody good job we are not following the example of lions, hippos or chimps - they actually murder the offspring of other couples that compete for resources. Now....there's an idea!

Points out to assorted policemen over whom DM is swooning (and paying particular attention to most attractive young WPC) that the straw-coloured fluid in Evian bottle could not possibly be mine as a quick dip stick test showed that its originator is pregnant. Glances suspiciously around room to discover possible perpetrators of this wicked frame-up!

Omigod! Just realised I used the phrase "many moons ago"! I guess our neo-Freudians will tell me that means I have an obsession with women's menstrual cycles!

Fantastic! Wonderful to know that I have "given away" all the secrets I never knew I had. I just hope that James doesn't invoice me for his counselling services!!! I now have an Oedipus Complex (despite the fact that the very concept was pretty much consigned to the garbage pail by all but the most ardent Freudians many moons ago) and find the sight of a woman breast-feeding a sexual turn-on. These are things I didn't even know about myself but am glad that the perceptive psychological minds out there are able to determine these things from the postings I have made. BTW, ever heard of the saying "Perception is projection"? For your information, I do not find women breast-feeding a sexual turn-on. If I did I would have much less objection to it. Again we have a damned if I do, damned if I don't situation here. If I am perceived to object to BFing on basis of having hang-ups about women's breasts, I have a problem - If I do like women's breasts I have a problem. Would I be ok if I admitted to being indifferent about women's breasts or would that make me confused and ambiguous? Reminds me of the old joke about Freudian group therapy. If you turn up early you are anxious. If you turn up on time you are obsessive. If you turn up late you are hostile. No win situation. So cut the psychobabble James you clearly don't know what you are talking about and are throwing in jargon terms to try and dismiss the person not the arguement. As for reminding you of Islamists who want to hide women away, I am amazed that you can even allow yourself to be associated with such an absurd statement. And you accuse me of making tenuous connections between BFing and other activities??? I guess you will be accusing me of being like Hitler next which is always another popular arguement for people who can't debate the issues. Now, to the only arguements you make. "1) A Baby is not a dog. A baby feeding in a restaurant is socially acceptable whereas a dog eating in a restaurant would be a different matter. Obviously." No, a baby is not a dog. Dogs do however FEED and this was the critical issue you said was at the heart of the matter. If FEEDING is an inherently acceptable activity then you should have no objection to feeding a dog in a restaurant. You clearly are drawing a distinction between types of feeding - so am I. As for BFing in public being "socially acceptable" - you are engaged in circular reasoning, ie. citing as evidence the very issue that is under dispute. Effectively you are saying "Breast feeding in public is socially acceptable because BFing a baby in public is socially acceptable." Completely specious arguement. It is also patently obvious (and you seem to like things hat are 'obvious', obviously!) that BFing in public is NOT regarded in any universal way as being socially acceptable. The staff at William Rose appear to have found it highly embarrassing, I find it inappropriate in certain circumstances and there appear to be a number of contributors to this thread who agree. There is clearly therefore not any type of universal consensus on the matter. Your arguement simply redounds to some variety of "well everybody knows that...." or "all reasonable people think..." etc etc. An appeal to the nebulous "they" or "all reasonable people" is a completely barren arguement. "2) Signs on public transport are because take-aways smell and litter is usually left. Breast feeding a baby causes neither of these issues." In other words some eating habits offend the senses of smell in circumstances - just as BFing will offend some people who do not wish to have to watch it or think of it. The sense through which such people will be offended may be a different one - the sense of sight. Are the people on the tube or bus with their KFC entitled to say to others "I have to eat. Hold your nose if you don't like it. Don't look at the litter." According to you that would be acceptable for them to say. Furthermore, the notion that feeding babies cannot create smells or litter is absurd. Have you never seen a baby being fed which is then winded by the mother to belch and fart to her satisfaction? Have you never seen a child that is being fed regurgitate some of the milk? I certainly have seen both of these things on a number of occasions and it is unappealing when one is eating or drinking. That would seem to me to be "obvious"! Have you never seen a mother who is feeding her child lift it to her face-level to sniff the nappy to see if the child needs changing? I certainly have and it is enough to put many people off their food. "3) Personal grooming. Again, like urinating etc. this is not comparable to feeding a baby. You have no need to do this in public whereas a mother may need to feed her baby during the day." Personal grooming IS comparable to BFing in that it is a behaviour that most people feel is appropriate but may not wish to watch in a food service environment and it would be tactful for the person doing it to do it discretely or somewhere else. BTW I have turned down the invitation to run for President as politics is not conducive to being able to speak unpopular truths that offend the sanctified notions of the politically correct. ALso I have debated at the Oxford Union and also the Cambridge Union but that was many years ago.

I am happy to close the thread. Bloody tiring fighting my corner! Has everything that needs to be said been said? Everyone insulted eachother adequately? All agreed to disagree?

As an aside I am also inclined to think there may be SOME truth in the opinion 'expressed' (no pun intended) by someone that there is a degree of social cache and trendiness present here (NO, not in every case before I am further castigated!) Those who have read my earlier comments in this thread will have heard how I worked for a very feminist dominated organisation over ten years ago and was taken to task for suggesting that breast-feeding was a good thing that should be encouraged. I was told then that my views were a typical male's views, attempting to tie a woman to her child, happy to turn a woman into nothing but a breeding and feeding machine, denying her her right to a separate individual identity etc etc etc ad nauseum. When I pointed out that there was simply an overwhelming degree of evidence that suggested BF'ing was usually the healthiest option for both mother and child, I was told that I was simply trying to impose a guilt complex on those mothers who chose nopt to breast feed by insinuating that they were 'bad mothers'. It certainly seems that the prevailing fashion changes with the times and some people are so temperocentric that they are unable to appreciate how their views are shaped by current convention, which may well change. Seems I am damned if I advocate BF'ing and damned if I ask people to be a little more considerate of others when carrying it out.

Such interesting responses. I was inclined to agree with TillieT who struck an admirably balanced chord - it is something that people should be encouraged to do but should also perhaps exercise a degree of discretion about knowing that it is off-putting to some people in some situations. Then we had James weigh-in with his claptrap about anyone who is not 100% in favour of overt, public breastfeeding being riddled with issues, repressions, fixations and Freudian cocnepts. Interesting! Anyone who is familiar with the history of Freudian thought itself will be aware that even amongst early psychoanaltic circles it was popular practice to make ad hominum attacks on other people's theories simply by accusing them of exactly these types of vague, nebulous, psychiatric defects. Indeed, with a few notable exceptions, the entire tone of the attacks on those who are not 100% in favour of BF'ing in public has been along the lines of "you are sexist, dinosaurs, repressed, anti-women, uncomfortable with naked breasts, fixated on tits, etc etc etc." Oh well, I guess that is the inevitable consequence of not being able to address the arguements and having to attack the person with allegations of various psychiatric instability despite not even knowing the person in question. Then we had a couple of people who were "speechless". At least that is honest - they admitted they didn't have any arguement to make and were simply responding with knee-jerk reactions that they 'just knew' or 'just felt' that BF'ing is a good thing. ear old James also notes of course that BF'ing is a form of "EATING". I will ignore the obvious point that it is actually drinking and assume that his underlying point is that this is a natural process and should be universally acceptable. Does this mean then that I could bring my dog into Cafe Nero and give him a tin of Winalot in a bowl? Whi, if eating is so unioversally acceptable, do we have signs on buses and tubes asking people not to eat take-away food on public transport as it may offend other people? Let's look at another nice natural act - PERSONAL GROOMING! This is a great thing to do and I doubt anyone would want to be around someone who didn't pay attention to personal hygiene. Does this mean I would be entitled to sit in a restaurant or cafe and clip my finger or toes nails, or squeeze a spot in front of other diners? I imagine a great many people would find this an off-putting spectacle and ask me to do it somewhere more discrete. I could argue till I was blue in the face that it was a perfectly natural and necessary thing to do but many people would say "Perhaps, but not here thanks, I'm eating." Bottom line is there is at least a sizeable minority of people who find someone breast-feeding nearby something that is not necessarily conducive to a hearty appetite and I think it is perfectly reasonable that the feelings of those people should be taken into consideration and some balance be arrived at. It is easy, yet also childish and rather sad, to simply dismiss such people as "repressed" and "fixated". Final point - I LOVE women's breasts, I have no hang-ups about them at all. I love to touch them, fondle them, stroke them, suck them and kiss them etc etc. I find that their appeal is slightly diminished in my eyes when a baby is attached to them and I am expected to have to sit and view this sight whilst eating or drinking. I am particularly irritated when this is done without any apparent consideration on the part of the mother in question for the fact that others might be put off victuals that they have paid to be able to consume in comfort. Someo

Careful ofthese "expostulations"! I only ever expostulate in the window of Cafe Nero. You can get away with anything there apparently!

Joking in what way? i simply asked a question.

Did anyone see Sean Penn in The Drum the other day?

The great irony for me is this....about fifteen years ago I was working in head office for a charitable organisation devoted to the welfare of lone parents. The organisation was enormously female and feminist dominated. I had a discussion one day about breastfeeding and observed that I felt it was the most natural and healthiest form of feeding a child and that it should be encouraged. At this comment, a considerable number of these feminist, single mothers who I worked with attempted to try to take me apart telling me that it was a typical male attitude that women should be compelled to breastfeed and made to feel guilty if they didn't! I replied by pointing out that I wasn't trying to make anyone feel guilty but was simply reflecting the consensus scientific position on feeding children. Strange, isn't it, that even when I was championing breastfeeding I was also acused of being "sexist", "old-fashioned", "misogynistic" etc etc etc! It seems that anyone who disputes the contemporary view of what is POLITICALLY CORRECT is immediately vilified by the same sorry slogans, uttered without thought or consideration.

"Self abuse"? Now there is a 'neanderhal' attitude to self-gratification. I think an important point that I outlined is that there are connotations of breast-feeding (most of them to do with a child's digestive functions) that are quite natural but not very savoury and are not pleasant for other people to have to come face-to-face with in certain environments - such as dining or food service environments. As for "pissing, shitting, self-abuse etc etc are not really within the parameters of what is currently deemed socially acceptable", I would suggest that the level of disquiet about VERY public and unselective displays of breastfeeding elucidated within, and which initiated this thread, suggests that for very many people breastfeeding without consideration for the context is also "not really within the parameters of what is currently deemed socially acceptable". I am NOT against the concept of breastfeeding but I believe it needs to be balanced with the right of others not to be compelled to be confronted by a practice which may put them off their food etc. Let me take the urination analogy a little further. If someone was caught short I personally would not particularly mind if he or she popped down an alley or pee'd against a tree, but I would like to think that he or she might have looked around for a public convenience first. And I would certainly be pretty hacked off if he or she decided, with no apparent concern for my feelings, to pee against a tree in front of me when I was eating a sandwich in the park and exhuded the air that he or she had a God-given right to do so. The objection I think many have is about this militant, "in your face" attitude that many breast-feeding mums have, ie. "I am going to breastfeed my child and I don't care if it puts you off your latte or makes you uncomfortable. My right as a nursing mum automatically trumps everyone else's interests." Well, sorry but B****CKS it does! Allied with that is the added attitude "And don't you dare look at my breast while I am doing it." This latter attitude which can be noted in glares and frowns at anyone who doesn't instantly avert their eyes the moment they light upon a breast-feeding mum, completely undermines the arguement that it is a natural and appropriate public behaviour. If it's so natural and appropriate why do BF'ing mums seem to get so stroppy about being watched. If you don't wish to be seen BF'ing - don't do it in public!

Nice one Dulwich Mum, deciding not to lower yourself to the level of this discussion and then promptly doing so. Have you been drinking too much champagne or something? As for supporting mothers who breat feed and all the associated social and health benefits - I agree with that. I do not, however, agree that it is a practice that is appropriate for every environment (few activities are, almost everything is context appropriate). If a woman's breast is such a natural thing would it be acceptable for women to parade bare breasted up and down LL, or is a woman's breast only a thing of beauty when it is used to suckle a child? If the human body and its processes are so natural why has that poor nudist hiker been arrested so many times for hiking through the UK in his birthday suit? Breast-feeding has certain connotations that it evokes in peoples' minds - winding a child, a child potentially vomitting whilst feeding, the concept of soiled nappies etc, and that is not the sort of thing many people want to have brought into their mind when they are eating/drinking in a cafe or when they are choosing fresh food for their evening meal. Squeezing spots or picking scabs also perfectly natural activities, however, most people would probably agree that they are not the sort of thing it is considerate to do in front of others in a dining or food service environment. Burping and farting are natural processes to expel gas from the intestines but if someone stood, 'both ends burning', in William Rose or Moxtons, I imagine they would be asked to desist or leave forthwith. Sadly, predictably, inevitably a number of the posters on this thread have resorted to taking the position that if you object to a woman breast-feeding ANYWHERE, you are opposed to breastfeeding fullstop! That is nonsense and it is perfectly reasonable to expect any mother to balance her right to breastfeed with the rights of others who might find the sight distatseful in certain environments. The problem is, of course, that support for breastfeeding is the POLITICALLY CORRECT option and once something is deemed to be POLITICALLY CORRECT, it is sacrosanct for the liberal middle-classes and anyone who disagrees with them must be unenlightened, reactionary etc.

Repressed, outraged and prudish are three qualities that I think most people who know me would laugh outright to hear ascribed to me. Let us consider this arguement that breastfeeding is 'natural' and therefore can be done anywhere the mother wishes. Here is a list of a number of other 'natural' processes - urination, defecation, sex, childbirth, masturbation. As these are also 'natural' processes (some of them indeed probably much more universal than breastfeeding) I take it you would be happy to see anyone engage in such behaviours in 'the dog'. Obviously if you objected to someone having a quick toss in the window of Cafe Nero that would make you "repressed", "outraged" and "prudish". Or would you say "Yes, it's perfectly natural, but there is a time and a place."

Laughs at DM's Trout Pout! Snigger! Offers up silent prayer of thanks that I am a man and can embrace the coming years as an opportunity to become 'distonguished'.

Does this mean I can sit in the window of Nero with my willy out (it needs a bit of an airing!!!)

The Quiet Room? Never heard of it.

Just to clarify...'PC' in my post meant Politically Correct (an oxymoron, if ever there was one) NOT Police Cuntstable.