Well, exactly KC. That fundamental right doesn't exist. There are too many indecency laws that are on the books which infringe upon breastfeeding in public. The only recourse for mothers who want to nurse in public is by carving out special laws for them. That's the problem.

Kuta, Idaho is the only state in the United States that does not have an explicit law allowing breast feeding in any public or private place. The Virgin Islands and District of Columbia have similar laws. Not sure about Guam, Puerto Rico or other US territories.

Yes, KC. You are still completely missing the point.

Why does there need to be a law *allowing* breastfeeding? Why does the state need to be involved at all?

Answers: Because the state prohibits toplessness so they have to carve out an exception for breastfeeding. This is not a sensible use of state power.

When the State acts on the will of the people it is doing a good job. In this case that is exactly what the State is doing. It is the only sensible use of State power.

is this thread still going? Breasts are sexualized because of culture, you can change culture although it takes time. It would require media to support the change. We can get into philosophical debates about whether a law should precede cultural acceptance or proceed after culture has changed. It is similar to the chicken or egg conversation. What I am saying is regardless of what comes first media will play the largest role. If Fox, CNN, MTV, and the plethora of floating heads and mainstream media don't support the law or cultural revolution then it will not catch on.

It's all Eve's fault.

What's Eve's fault?

Well said, all around, Jeff.

@byron interesting perspective. I wonder then what is it that leads to the critical media "tipping point" such as we had in gay marriage so recently?

I agree about breast feeding, but why on earth does someone have the "right" to be topless? A good use of State power is doing something that the vast majority of people in the state approve of. That should really be the only criteria.

There won't be a tipping point. Gay marriage was a hugely important issue to many people, who were supported by their many friends. This issue is important to virtually no one. To even compare the two strikes me as crass.

I know men that have bigger boobs than any woman I've ever seen. If they can do it, a breastfeeding mother or a pretty girl on a beach that wants to ought to be able to.

A) A breastfeeding mother CAN legally breastfeed anywhere in the US (outside of Idaho, apparently)
B) Mens' breasts, for better or worse, are not sexualized like females' breasts. That is why this entire discussion is happening. Equating the two is ignoring hundreds, maybe thousands, of years of stigmatization. I am not saying it is good. I think it would be better if it wasn't that way. But just legalizing it isn't going to solve the problem. It will likely make the problem worse for quite a while. Also, it is not even close to the public opinion.

Who cares that breasts are sexualized? First of all, they aren't sex organs, and second of all, a small group of men have gone low enough to sexualize a little kid's cartoon. Literally. They're called bronies. They're disgusting. If anyone on here is one of them, yeah, you heard me right. It's fucking terrible. And yet, just because some men decide to sexualize them, My Little Pony has not been censored. Just because some dudes like to draw horses fucking each other, they don't force you to put clothes on your toy ponies. That's ridiculous. And yet, contextually, these situations are the same - the sexualization of a non-sexual thing. Censor both or censor neither.

@ bo

Either that is a joke, or you have just won the award for lamest argument I have ever heard in my entire life.

It's not even an argument, it's just a point. We put clothes on breasts but not toy horses. I don't get how they're different.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/01/my-little-pony-bronies-rebels

You appear to be attacking and labeling as "disgusting" a small minority of people who are utterly harmless. What have they done to earn your hate, bo? Were you kicked out of your local My Little Pony club?

Also, bo, you are comparing a very small group of individuals to basically the Western World. At the very least, the US.

Well this conversation took a turn.

Bo, the fact you know about this is disturbing. Also #BoVirginConspiracy #confirmed

Octavious, they sexualized a TV show for little girls. That's pretty damn disgusting. I guess you're within your rights to disagree, but that's my stance and I'll stick by it.

KC, that's my point. I don't get why sexualization of a non-sexual thing is worth censoring regardless of how many people do it. I'm just saying that if you're going to censor one non-sexual thing, censor all the fetishes for non-sexual things. Feet? Can't be seen in public, some people sexualize them. Abs, stomachs? No, some people sexualize those. Gotta hide them. Iran's got it figured out (that's sarcasm, Octavious). Just because something has become a social norm doesn't mean it's correct. The fact is that breasts aren't sexual. They just aren't.

Could all the bronies on this site state their position on women being allowed to be topless.

"The fact is that breasts aren't sexual. They just aren't."

I dunno, Mrs. Anglican always gets rather annoyed if I ignore them during sex, even if I pay more attention to one than the other actually.

That's her brain talking, not her breasts.

Why does something have to be inherently sexual to have to be censored? I feel this needs a definition of "inherently" sexual. Biologically speaking, breasts are part of courtship. Males are sexually attracted to them by genetics. Larger breasts = more milk, in the eyes of prehistoric men. More milk means stronger babies.

KC, why do you think breasts are censored?

Because the vast majority of people (where I live, ie the US) find them sexual.

Woohoo, censor everything sexual (if the majority agrees).

Transgender folks are making the whole #freethenipple campaign much more...interesting.

Sex organs are directly related to sex and reproduction. These are the female sex organs:

Bartholin’s Glands
Clitoris
Cervix
Fallopian Tubes
Labium
Ovaries
Uterus
Vulva
Vagina
Skene’s Gland

You can find whatever you want sexual, but that doesn't make them sex organs. Breasts are, from an anatomical standpoint, secondary sexual features, meaning they develop during puberty and aren't necessary for the creation of a fetus.

http://www.sexarchive.info/ATLAS_EN/html/primary_characteristics.html
http://www.sexarchive.info/ATLAS_EN/html/secondary_characteristics.html

My entire point is that breasts are not a sex organ but that they are sexualized anyway. So are feet. So are eyes. So are ears. So are a bunch of things. We consider a lot of them to be weird. I find a lot of them repulsing. Yet we only censor breasts.

From an evolutionary standpoint, big breasts and big hips have always been sexual. Men wanted to find good strong women who would give birth well, and be able to take care of their young. Is it surprising that thousands of years of learning has been ingrained in us?