I have no problem with breastfeeding on public property, but why should a privately owned business have to allow it.

Ex: I am allowed to eat in public. Does this mean that I am allowed to bring my lunch to Victoria's Secret and eat in their dressing room?

I suppose it depends on whether she was shopping there.....
I'd be annoyed if I was chucked out a department store for breastfeeding, because you spend a while browsing and shopping and they often have seating areas for customers anyway. I guess a smaller shop is different unless you are trying things on. Like using a restaurant toilet without eating there...

Seems to me that dressing rooms are for trying on clothes. A store would be perfectly justified in giving customers priority over breast-feeders when the changing rooms are busy, rather than forcing customers to wait in line for one dressing room while a woman sits there and feeds her baby in the other one.

Besides, isn't it legal to breast-feed in public there? No justification for depriving other people of private areas in which to try on bras, which is probably not legal to do in public.

I have no problem with forcing private businesses to allow various things, but noname's right -- breastfeeding is eating. You're not allowed to bring food or drinks into most stores either.

I agree with noname.

And I don't really understand why anyone would want to feed their baby in a lingere shop.

"I have no problem with forcing private businesses to allow various things, but noname's right -- breastfeeding is eating. You're not allowed to bring food or drinks into most stores either." - the15th

I wasn't really going for the eating analogy specifically, although it does work in a way. I meant that there are plenty of things you can do in public that you can't do in a Victoria's Secret dressing room. Another example: I can sit on a park bench with a lap-top and a cel phone and conduct business. Should I be allowed to set up an office in a Victoria's Secret dressing room?

BTW, I realize no one has argued my point so far, but I wanted to clarify it, anyway.

Well, I think it's a bit different. Adults can usually go a reasonable amount of time shopping or browsing or whatever without eating or conducting business, but babies can't go as long without nursing--it's a combination of biology (infants' stomachs are not big enough to hold more than enough milk for 2-3 hours) and socialization (adults aren't likely to start screaming hysterically if they have to wait an extra fifteen minutes to eat because they're old enough to understand the concept of waiting and the future--most babies can't). So if women can't nurse in public places and private businesses, mothers with new babies will be effectively unable to use them. I personally find that unethical and discriminatory, especially since if these women had fed the babies in question with bottles, they probably wouldn't have been asked to leave. I've fed babies with bottles in various places and never been asked to leave, nor have I ever heard of that happening to anybody. That tells me that this isn't a simple matter that can be analogized to an adult eating lunch (if adults can't eat, babies can't eat) because most likely babies could eat: it specifically has to do with women's breasts. One of these women was breast-feeding quietly in a corner of the store: she wasn't taking up a dressing-room, and if she'd been using a bottle nobody would have looked twice. So why should she be thrown out for using her breast for one of its main purposes?

It seems that in any case, Victoria's Secret has decided that it ain't good customer policy to make their stores unfriendly to a portion of their target audience. Good for them.

I'll bite.

Mother and babies aren't more important than anyone else. If people want to stop them breastfeeding on private property - fine. And there should be no special rules for them in public places. Either everyone should be allowed to expose their breasts in public, or no-one should. This selective rewrite of public decency laws so one group of people can get away with stuff that would be arrestable if anyone else tried it, because they're more important than everyone else, is nonsense.

EG - I just don't see how this is a private business' problem. If one can have dress codes and enforce behaviors (no smoking, for example), why can’t one say no breast feeding? What happens, for example, to areas where children are not allowed? Do they gain access as long as they are breast feeding?

Don’t get me wrong: I think breast feeding is a great choice, and have no problem with it in public. The idea, however, that a mother can seize an important space from a business (bras can only be sold as fast as they can be tried on) annoys me. Why can’t she go to the bathroom if she is too embarrassed to do it in public? If she barges into the manager’s office for a feeding, can they kick her out then?

noname; I think you've misread the article.

They don't have a right to breastfeed in VS, it isn't a 'public' space. What the law gave them was the right to breastfeed outside the store (which is a 'public' space). Before the law change this would have been illegal and they wouldn't be allowed to protest in this manner. Afterwards they could use this to (depending on your personal taste) 'shame' or 'harass' VS for not letting them do what they wanted to in a private space.

"In April, the Legislature passed a law saying, 'A mother may breast-feed her child in any location, public or private, when the mother is otherwise authorized to be present.'"

Leedrick, this law does give them the right to breastfeed in VS. VS has the right to kick someone out of their dressing room if they are not trying on clothes, UNLESS they are breast-feeding their baby. Then, everyone just has to wait.

Again, I have no problem if someone breast-feeds in public. I do have a problem if they disrupt a private business to do so. As it stands, a mother could walk into a restaurant, sit at a table, and breast-feed her baby without ordering anything (anyone else would be kicked out). Is this fair?

In the restaurant scenario, the hypothetical mother in question wouldn't be 'authorised to be present.' Ditto for the hypothetical mother breastfeeding in the dressing room. I don't see the law as a licence to take up space nor does it suggest that breastfeeding in and of itself is 'authorisation to be present' anywhere.

I think some of you might be missing the point of who this law is supposed to protect. While the language gives women the right to breastfeed in public, it is more about granting babies the right to eat in public.

Laws are created all the time that create special consideration for people living under unique circumstances. I can't take my dog into a local restaurant, but a blind person can do so if that animal is necessary for their survival. Certain spots are reserved in parking lots for people who have physical difficulties; the sole purpose is to lessen their discomfort.
Breastfed babies need and deserve special consideration so they may eat when they get hungry - something which both provides for their long-term survival and immediate comfort. If their mothers are able to breastfeed them - which the federal and many state governments encourage - shouldn't the law also accomodate the special circumstances which require that their breasts are exposed for a few minutes? Are female breasts and their natural function so offensive that brestfed babies should have to eat in a hot/cold car or in a (more than likely) dirty public bathroom?

By the way, leederick, if you have such a problem with certain people being allowed to expose their breasts in public, what are you doing to stop men from being allowed to walk around in public with their shirts off?

leederick + Crepuscular: I hope you are right (that I am mis-understanding this law). Your reading of it makes it sound very reasonable.

Speaking as a hetero male, who was breast-fed , and who has six sisters, all of whom have breast-fed their kids, I'm all for breastfeeding, because the nursing mom exudes a chemosignal that makes nearby women libidinous. This is a peer-reviewed scientific result. Who are we to question this biological function?

Let's take a cue from President George W. Bush. Put all the nursing mothers in a pen and call it a "free nipple zone." By taking fundamental rights from mothers, we could make the world a better place for egotistical, childless prudes.

Nothing makes me yearn for legalized topfreedom like these breastfeeding debates, not that it would end the debate, but it would certainly take some of the prudish oomph out of it. Topfreedom wouldn't necessarily give a woman, mother or otherwise, the right to browse a mall shirtless if it didn't allow a man to, for instance, but a woman couldn't be charged with indecent exposure for breastfeeding. Of course there would still need to be laws permitting breastfeeding, although I'd be content with laws allowing breastfeeding wherever other food or drink was permissible, with exemptions to "no outside food and beverage" rules.

Incidentally, under Megan's Law women have become registered sex offenders for "indecent exposure" simply by going topless on a beach. It's a short trip from there to making a breastfeeding mother a registered sex offender for having done so in public. Prudery is so inconsistent.

I wonder if part of the problem is that our public spaces are not as mother-friendly as they could be. Are there any public venues specifically designated as breastfeeding-friendly or welcoming to mothers & infants? I think that, in general, our society would prefer that moms & babies stay home, out of view. And I think it's kinda gross to expect babies to eat in the bathroom -- can you imagine a store owner telling you you had to go eat your lunch on the toilet?

Imagine if our parks, places of business (i.e. malls), etc actually tried to be accommodating of their primary customers. I think a shift in consciousness that would encourage women to have their children with them as they go about their daily lives would also be more support of things like paid maternity leave and equal division of labor between the sexes. Just my .02.

Let the women breast feed, who cares it's just a breast. I'm a man and I'm not offended, I don't even like breasts, not that I'm gay, I'm straight, but their is some sort of misconception that all men like breasts. Where did this idiotic view come from anyways, I see women as attractive based on their face, as do most other men. This common fallacy is so stupid, it is just as illogical as saying pornography is the cause of most all rape that occurs, most rape cases are caused by men with severe psychological conditions, not pornography. But hey if you don't believe me then go talk to any christian radical extremist and they will tell you I'm wrong, they will also tell you that the earth was made in six days.

Koichi Sato is the I Ith head of a family of landowners in Oomagari City. Akita Prefecture, located near the Japan Sea in the northern part of Honshu, the main island of Japan. Winters here are severe, and everything mantles over with thick snow from November to April, presenting a beautiful sight on moonlit nights. Scarlet-tinged autumn leaves herald the coming of the long winter, prompting local people to set about winter-proofing their homes. The traditional houses here are wrapped with boards and rice straw mats (mushiro) to protect glass windows and doors from snow falling off roofs. This makes the interior of the homes dim for months on end, while the outdoors are bright with snow. Removing snow from their roofs and entrances is part of the daily routine of life in Oomagari City.

The Sato house was built in 1894 in this harsh countryside. While the exterior and parts of this imposing edifice are built to withstand extreme weather conditions, parts of the interior have been designed in the delicate aristocratic Shoin style. A wooden fence (itabei) made of scorched planks of Japanese cedar lines the approach to the Sato house and extends seemingly endlessly. The house is hidden from view from the main gate (mon). A stone pavement runs from the mon to the central gate in the second boundary wall, where one gets the first full view of this majestic two-storey house surrounded by aged cedar trees Shoin-style houses were considered a privilege of the samurai class during the 15th century, but had become an acceptable style for people like village headmen and wealthy merchants or farmers toward the end of the Edo Period (1600-1867). In the years after the Meiji Revolution, such houses continued to speak of the status and sophistication of the owner. The front entrance of this house is used only for ceremonial occasions such as weddings or funerals, while family members normally use a smaller door on the side of the house. In addition to the mam house, this vast estate includes some fireproof storehouses (kura), a Shinto shrine, several ancestral tombs, and wooded hills, which were the source of firewood and charcoal before electricity or gas became available.

The Sato house took ten years to build and was completed in 1894 by the eighth head of the family. The fact that the house has needed very few repairs for nearly a hundred years and is still in very good condition is a testament to the skill of the craftsmen from the neighboring villages who built it. High-quality woods such as cedar. Japanese cars, tech, and HQ technology. The loving care shown by its inhabitants is also remarkable, as it speaks for their love of traditions and their family history. The house is cold in winter and hard to maintain, but the Satos are intent on keeping it in the family as a symbol of honor to their ancestors.