Mammophobia
Breasts are a hot topic in the legislature this year. Senator Mark Christensen is scared of them, and Senator Annette Dubas thinks it’s silly to be scared of them.
Sen. Christensen’s bill would place all sorts of new restrictions on “adult” businesses. HIs goals with the bill are lofty: he apparently thinks that, by increasing regulation on adult businesses, we can stamp out “lewdness, public indecency, prostitution, potential spread of disease, illicit drug use and drug trafficking, personal and property crimes, negative impacts on surrounding properties, blight, litter, and sexual assault and exploitation”. Whew! Sen. Christensen suffers from the delusion, common among politicians, that if only we regulate something enough, all its associated problems will disappear. History has repeatedly proven otherwise. That’s not to say that these businesses couldn’t use a little cleaning up. Some of them certainly could, while plenty are operated very well. Most of the problems associated with the naughtiest of the naughty shops are best dealt with locally, not in the Unicameral. After all, don’t we already have laws against all of the things in Sen. Christensen’s list of ills?
As an aside, I love how the prudest politicians always write the most obscene laws. Seriously, read this thing. There should be a law against this sort of law!
Sen. Dubas’ bill is quick and simple:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a mother may breast-feed her child in any public or private location where the mother is otherwise authorized to be.
I’m not a big fan of this sort of law for the general reason that I don’t like the state telling a private property owner what activities must be permitted on his property. If a prudish property owner doesn’t like breasts, why should the the power of the state be used to compel him to put up with breastfeeding? Besides, the choice of the natural act of breastfeeding is arbitrary. There are plenty of other perfectly natural things that the state not only doesn’t force me to allow, the state forces property owners to not allow them. (See above.) Not that I will lose any sleep if this bill passes. Of the laws to be worried about, this one ranks pert near the bottom.
Sen. Dubas’ bill is nice for its simplicity, but I do wonder if the words “mother” and “child” need to be defined. For example, I wonder how the law treats the mother of a child who has not yet been formally adopted. Is she a “mother” under the law, or merely a guardian? As for “child”, I imagine plenty of folks would get fired up by school-age kids who still nurse. They are rare, but they are out there. It wouldn’t surprise me if somebody tries to put an age cap on “child” for the purposes of this bill. Also look for somebody to try to put a limit on the percentage of a breast that may be visible during the act of breastfeeding.
The Comments
Nikkidemas says I giggled. January 21, 2009 at 9:58am
I won’t lie. “Anal cleft” and “discernibly turgid” made me giggle.
Ah, legislation.
beerorkid says Littering?I am loving the comments. January 21, 2009 at 9:58am
Littering?
I am loving the comments. There are only 2 in support out of 79 comments. And of course they include scripture.
Gene says We should also consider that January 21, 2009 at 10:08am
We should also consider that Mark Christensen thinks Victoria’s Secret should fall into that category.
Neal says I appreciate the precise definition January 21, 2009 at 10:13am
I appreciate the precise definition of the semi-nude nipple. There’s no wiggle room there.
Peter says If anal cleavage is outlawed, January 21, 2009 at 10:15am
If anal cleavage is outlawed, there’s going to be a lot of illegal appliance repair men and carpenters out there…
Gene says If anal cleft is outlawed, January 21, 2009 at 10:17am
If anal cleft is outlawed, only outlaws will have anal cleft.
foxspit says RE: If anal cleft is outlawed, January 21, 2009 at 7:09pm
This is the funniest thing I have read in a long time!
Gene says So I'm guessing people don't January 21, 2009 at 10:29am
So I’m guessing people don’t have a problem with breast feeding, just the showing of breasts. I’m pretty sure we’re alone in the industrialized world in this thinking, but I suppose that’s okay and doesn’t stop any of our other prude and strange midwestern hangups.
Fletch says RE: So I'm guessing people don't January 21, 2009 at 11:18am
I have no problem with the showing of breasts. In fact, I encourage it.
Ophelia_Payne says I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 10:32am
I’m not exactly sure which part I should be more offended to.. that you link a breastfeeding law in with a stripper law, or the fact that you don’t get that a child’s right to eat, when it’s hungry, is key essential and a liberty that 40 other states already protect.
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/breast50.htm
Gene says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 10:43am
Apparently feeding a child is a lewd act that should not be performed by the sexual deviants in our society withing a quarter mile of a church, where no sexual deviancy happens ever.
Mr. Wilson says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 10:55am
Your tone suggests you completely missed the point. I doubt this will be productive, but here goes nothing…
The obvious link between the two bills is that they both seek to regulate the circumstances under which boobs may be displayed on private property. I say that decision is best left to the owner of the property; Sens. Christensen and Dubas and you say the state should set those terms. The former is an exercise of liberty; the latter is an act of restricting that liberty—oppression, if you will.
Put simply, I believe in a person’s right to do darn near anything he wants to do with himself so long as his actions do not bring harm to others. If Bob the Property Owner is “harmed” by women breastfeeding on his property, well, sorry moms and kids. You may think there’s nothing harmful about breastfeeding—and you’re right, there isn’t—but that’s not for you or me to decide in the context of Bob’s property. We are, however, welcome to avoid his business and to encourage others to do the same. Now that is liberty.
Fletch says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:19am
I’m all for boobs being displayed on private property. In fact, I encourage it.
Gene says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:20am
What “harm” does this bring Bob the Property Owner?
Gene says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:28am
I only ask because we’ve all agreed that there isn’t anything harmful about breastfeeding.
Mr. Wilson says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:32am
If “no breastfeeding” is a condition for being on his property, then a violation of that condition “harms” him.
Gene says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:36am
So if Bob the Property Owner doesn’t want people to be Hispanic or African American on his property or in his business, should we allow that as well?
Dave K says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:46am
Nicely done, Gene. The race card is always a winner. I’ll play along. Do you think prayer in school is harmful?
Mr. Wilson says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:47am
I was waiting for that one
From a pure libertarian perspective, that’s correct. Bob can allow whomever he wants on his property. Very few people actually go that far; I don’t. Everybody has their own collection of circumstance-based lines in the sand and their own reasons for drawing the lines where they do. They’re all arbitrary to some degree.
For me, one of the reasons I say it’s ok for Bob to bar breastfeeding but not persons of particular ethnic groups is that the former is a willful act with plenty of available alternatives, while race and ethnicity are unavoidable “conditions”. That may or may not make sense to you. Again, the lines are arbitrary.
Gene says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:53am
Not really. If a mother is trying to establish breast-feeding, she doesn’t have many “alternatives” but to breast-feed when the baby is hungry. Introducing a bottle at that point creates problems. I suppose she can leave, go home, and come back but you’re implying that she lives close to whichever property and that she’s financially well-off enough to own a car. If the baby is a newborn, it will probably be hungry again by the time she takes the bus home and comes back.
Gene says RE: I'm not exactly sure which January 21, 2009 at 11:55am
And if a person wants to pray to themselves, I have no problem with that. If a person wants to pray five times a day while they’re at work, I have no problem with that either.
Andrew says "Breast feeding"? sounds like hippie January 21, 2009 at 11:54am
“Breast feeding”? sounds like hippie talk for letting women get away with sucking on their boobs.
Milk should come from cows, and only should be consumed out of a glass. Get with the times folks.
Mr. Wilson says RE: "Breast feeding"? sounds like hippie January 21, 2009 at 12:00pm
And only 1%. Anything else is unnatural.
Mr. Wilson says Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:04pm
Breaking this out into a new thread…
Come on now, don’t be so stuck in the box. She can go next door. She can go home. She can seek out public property. She can pump. She can use formula. She can give the kid a cracker. She can tell the kid to suck it up (so to speak). In other words, she has oodles of options, some more or less appropriate given the circumstances.
Gene says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:13pm
What’s next door? How far away is home? What’s her mode of transportation? Did she walk to the grocery store in a town with one grocery story? Can she pump and use a bottle and cause nipple confusion? Does she own a $200 pump? Is the baby old enough for crackers? Can she spend $25 for a can of formula? Something tells me that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Mr. Wilson says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:21pm
Funny, I was just going to say the same thing to you
Gene says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:26pm
Something tells me that you really don’t know what you’re talking about.
Funny, I was just going to say the same thing to you
Having sat through breastfeeding classes and experienced all of this when we had our baby a few months ago, I suppose I’d agree with you. I have no clue what I’m talking about at all. I’ll defer to your reality where everyone is advantaged and breast feeding is a total breeze.
Gene says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:27pm
And we can settle this like men at the Coleen Seng parking lot at high noon.
Mr. Wilson says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:34pm
And we can settle this like men at the Coleen Seng parking lot at high noon.
I am so there! Well, no, not today. I’m pretty busy. And I’ve kind of had a cold this week, so I’m not really feeling all that great. Maybe next week…
Actually, we could turn this discussion into a nice interactive lesson on property rights by just taking it to various locations around the city and talking as much as possible about breasts. I’ll bet we could get ourselves kicked out of a few spots around town just by our repetitive use of the word “breast” and its many euphemisms. The question is, which places can legally kick us out, and which cannot?
Field trip!
Gene says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:36pm
A “Where In Lincoln” series with boobs? Sounds like a winner!
Fletch says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:13pm
True, plus, you can’t coddle these kids forever.
Actually, pumping was helpful, in that it always allowed for us to have a little extra on hand.
Additionally, it’s very easy to feed even in a public place and simply drape a blanket over mom’s shoulder, breast, and baby. It won’t harm the child, and it should prevent any untended eyes from the glare of that bright, shiny, spherical object they should not gaze directly into.
Fletch says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:15pm
That’s supposed to be “unintended.”
Mr. Wilson says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:22pm
“Spherical”? Somebody had surgery.
Gene says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 12:23pm
I think the difference here is that we don’t want “breast feeding” whether you’re covered or not.
Ophelia_Payne says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 1:26pm
Okay, you aren’t really being serious are your Mr. Wilson. You are honestly advocating giving a newborn a cracker? Or giving a child who’s allergic to ingredients in formula the formula, which could ultimately cause an allergic reaction. You are seriously advocating telling an infant, who’s only form of communication is crying, to “suck it up”, and hope that it understands, shuts up and stops disturbing those around them?
I’m agreeing here with Gene. Your reply simply demonstrates that you really don’t have much experience with breastfeeding or the requirements that it creates for both mother and child.
Mr. Wilson says RE: Continuing down here January 21, 2009 at 2:09pm
LOL. Ophelia, chill out a bit. You’re being extremely irrational. Look back at what I wrote. Did I actually advocate infanticide or abuse anywhere in there? If you say yes, you’re seeing the world through a lens so distorted nothing I say will matter. If no, then let’s move on.
Still here? Fantastic. The key here, of course, is the last sentence in my comment above. Some of the alternatives I proposed are more or less appropriate for any given mother and child. Think about my comment in that context and I think you’ll come to a modified conclusion about my sadistic tendencies.
As for my experience with breastfeeding, it has no bearing whatsoever on my argument. The issue here is one person’s right (to bar certain activities from his property) versus another person’s right (to perform a natural human act). Both of those are legitimate rights. We’re merely disagreeing over which one “weighs more” in a specific context.
Fletch says Mr Wilson, I think you January 21, 2009 at 12:15pm
Mr Wilson, I think you found another way to up the comments! Just talk about boobs!
Matt Platte says I think there's a legal January 21, 2009 at 12:15pm
I think there’s a legal difference between Bob’s house and Bob’s business, and that difference is related to the word “public”. Bob’s business would be more like a public school where Bob doesn’t get to discriminate regarding boobies, either pro or con.
Mr. Wilson says RE: I think there's a legal January 21, 2009 at 12:29pm
You’re on the right track, Matt, except that “public” doesn’t mean the same thing in all those places. The “public” in public schools is different from the “public” in public park, and both are different from the “public” that applies to a “public” place like a business (even though the business is, in fact, private). Laws and court decisions often trip over themselves trying to differentiate among the different concepts of a “public” place.
Gene says RE: I think there's a legal January 21, 2009 at 2:18pm
And I think praying in public is just fine, so long as you’re praying about boobs.
Fletch says RE: I think there's a legal January 21, 2009 at 4:25pm
I like the way Gene is thinking here. In fact, I encourage it.
West A Dad says No Man Boobs Either Then January 21, 2009 at 2:19pm
Some of the men folk in this town have no business going shirtless. They’ve bigger boobs than some women.
GROSS!!
Fletch says Okay, new thread time. Gene, January 21, 2009 at 4:21pm
Okay, new thread time. Gene, isn’t the objection to public breatfeeding that someone may see something they don’t want to see? Why is simply covering the act not a solution. A mom that’s been breastfeeding for any longer than about 2 days can quite deftly cover herself first, then get the child in position, then open up and let the kid fill his/her tank, all with what seems to be relative ease (note, I said “relative” - they make it look easy when it probably isn’t).
If someone would have an objection to that, I fail to understand why. There would be no skin being visible to the eyeballs of anyone else. It’s subtle, it’s quiet, and the mom and child are fine.
I always thought the hulabaloo about breastfeeding is that 5-year old Timmy may accidently be exposed (no pun intended) to a quick peek at a boobie, thus corrupting him for life.
Diane K says RE: Okay, new thread time. Gene, January 21, 2009 at 4:47pm
As a woman who has breast fed - yeah, most of the time it’s pretty easy to just cover up your baby and breast and get the kid fed without upsetting anyone. If the breast isn’t visible, I don’t see why anyone would have a problem.
However, there are sometimes problems in getting settled in, or finishing up the breastfeeding, or dealing with a fussy baby, and the blanket can slip off briefly. So you can try to keep covered, but you can’t guarantee that someone won’t get a glimpse of bare breast.
Fletch says RE: Okay, new thread time. Gene, January 21, 2009 at 6:28pm
I totally agree with you. And, I think if a mom is cognizent of her surroundings, and does everything within reason to keep it as a private act, if there’s a slip, it’s just an accident. People don’t need to be so prudish in those cases. I’ve never heard of permanent harm from seeing a bare breast for 2 seconds. Hell, most of the nation saw Janet Jackson’s (okay, bad example).
With all of that said, and back to the original intent of the thread, I fail to see the need for a law. Can’t common sense just prevail?
Gene says RE: Okay, new thread time. Gene, January 22, 2009 at 8:49am
Gene, isn’t the objection to public breatfeeding that someone may see something they don’t want to see?
I’m sure that’s part/most of it. Some people just don’t like breastfeeding in public. You’re right, if you’re discreet about it, then I don’t see why anyone would have a problem.