You may or may not have heard about the controversy that was recently a blip in the national news. I was shocked that such a stink was made over someone EATING in a RESTAURANT. Ok, well it wasn't food from the restaurant that was being eaten, that has to be what the stir was about, everyone knows that you don't take your sack lunch into an eatery, plop down at a table and start eating your Peanut Butter and Jelly.
As it turns out, the person that was eating had a good reason to be eating food that was from outside the restaurant, they are on a special diet of mother's milk and their mother was breastfeeding them. Ok, so we have a seven-month old child that is being breastfed in a restaurant at a table while she is being taken out to eat in a state that has legal protection for breastfeeding mothers from interference of their breastfeeding.
A female employee was asked by the manager to ask the mother to cover the head of the child or to cease nursing because someone had complained that it was indecent. The mother responded by providing the restaurant with a copy of the law that shows she has a legal right to the activity free from interference. The conflict ended with the mother leaving upset to nurse her child as her food was being served and being unable to eat the food that was supposed to be a gift from her children.
What disturbs me is that someone could think that the act of feeding a child in the fashion that the body is designed is indecent. Basically, an indecent act is one that is judged by a communal consensus of being inappropriate. However, a generic consensus doesn’t work well for something that would be a criminal matter. Specifically, their would have to be some type of gratification of some party involved or viewing the act that would have to be sought by the actor (by the way, a full tummy is not what is meant by gratification).
Basically, if you consider breastfeeding to be indecent, then you are making the claim that the breast has no other nature or purpose than a sexual one. I would contend that there is a sexual element to the breast that could be demonstrated different ways but that is unnecessary to this issue at hand. The important part of the nature of the breast to the issue at hand is that it is not solely sexual or always sexual. It should be readily evident in a prima facie, on the face, fashion that the female breast has a particular function by its design that allows a mother to provide nourishment to a young child without dependence on exterior sources.
This demonstrates at least a portion of the nature of the female human breast and it is clearly non-sexual. The reality of that part of the breast being non-sexual is what allows a mother to be able to breastfeed in a fashion that is not indecent. This brings us to questions of style; my contention is that as long as a mother is not drawing attention to herself purposefully, let her be.
Now, we are drawing up to the line that comes between indecent and obscene. Before, we talked about indecency and the fact that it would be some type of simple act or exposure for sexual gratification. As we draw up to the line that separates indecency from obscene, respect for nature of the act as it is designed. I would contend that obscenity is when we cross over to changing the nature of an act. For example, a couple that has a right to marital relations that participates in it in the fashion designed but makes sure the windows that face the neighbor house and the lights are on so that the neighbors can see, would be indecent. It is my proposal that a woman who is merely participating in the feeding of her child and is utilizing the breast is no more indecent than a woman using a bottle, she is following the function of the breast and it is commonly accepted that feeding a child is not indecent. Sex on the other hand is meant to be a private union that is specifically always not intended for public viewing.
Obscenity would be when we attempt to change the nature of the act; rape for example is violently obscene. It is violent and violates a person’s right and that would violate the nature of the sexual act as it is intended by design. Now, could breastfeeding pass from normal to obscene? Yes, if we changed the nature of the way that it worked. If the mother sexualized the breastfeeding and tried to gain pleasure from the activity then that would be obscene.
I expect my wife to not to try to draw attention to herself when she is breastfeeding our child out in public (she is also very good at it) but that I would also expect her to do the same if it was just her eating. I would also expect that my wife wouldn’t have to eat with a blanket over her head or in the restroom. As a Catholic I think it is especially important to remember, in keeping with respect of life from conception to death, the dignity of a little baby who can’t eat the Bacon Ranch Cheeseburger and can’t comprehend why they have to wait to eat. If you would like my wife who is breastfeeding our baby to go to the bathroom so that our baby can eat, then why don’t you have your wife or daughter with their low cut or midriff baring top join her with their meal? I could probably say the same thing about your son with his unkempt hair and shirt that has a phrase I don’t want my eight year old to read.
I could probably talk for hours on this subject, but that would have to be done with a few beers and a few other philosophers around for it to make any sense, this may not even make sense to someone outside of my mind because I have forgotten to present a few assumptions that I make or explain a bit of background that is common knowledge to me. If you have further questions, feel free to comment and you can also check out the first two of my wife’s three part series on breastfeeding (part one and part two) that go into some of the ins and outs of breastfeeding from someone who should know about it.
Under the Mercy,
Matthew S
