No. My breasts are not obscene, they are fulfilling their intended purpose and feeding my child. I will not hide away as if this is something to be ashamed of.
Although for amusement’s like I’d quite like to see you get my breastfeeding toddler to stay under a blanket for any length of time for any reason.
Post dumb-o-meter: 82%
Honestly, though, how is this different from any other toddler in the pool? I haven’t known public pools during kids-allowed free swim periods to be all that quiet, regardless of who was sitting where. Having been a life guard at such a pool a lifetime ago, the 14 year olds were pretty damn loud, too. Only in their case it’s “Hey [friend]! WATCH THIS!” Also, lots and lots of shrieking. One toddler isn’t even going to register in all that.
I’m not in particular squicked by the idea of breast milk in the pool. I’m quite squicked by the idea of a baby lapping up a side order of pool-water droplets – with all sorts of fun chemistry – in the process. In a toddler pool I’d expect there to be splashing, probably a lot of it. I’d expect her breasts to be wet even if she hadn’t dunked her chest. I would not want a baby licking dirty, chemical-laden pool water off the boob. Gross. Get out the pool and at least wipe off with a towel, first. Husband was there, give him toddler-duty.
Wait… 4-month-old infants can swim?
Color me surprised. I thought she was just holding the baby.
(In case it was not clear from my other posts, I support public breastfeeding, as well as getting people to get over themselves at the sight of bare boobies in public. If a guy’s bare nips are cool, then so should a woman’s. No clutching of pearls here, I really do think that a baby sucking down pool water is unhygienic.)
Itty-bitties can swim, it’s true. It’s one of the reasons to think we may have had aquatic ancestors.
You must not hang out at YMCA pools or ones in subdivisions with lots of young families. People take their babies into the pool all the damn time. They even sell mesh pool slings. Of course you don’t chuck the kid in expecting them to do the Australian crawl all by themselves, but whether by holding their baby or installingthem in someform of flotationdevice, tons of families expose their infants’ virgin lips that icky pool water every day. At least if the exposure is from the mother’s “contaminated” nipple, the baby gets a dose of antibodies along with it!
Man, I came into this forum ready to be like, ‘man, just let people do what they do, a’ight? Ain’t hurtin’ nobody.’ But after reading the… anecdotes, as it were, I have drawn the conclusion that I am never, ever, ever going to a public swimming pool again. Nursing women or otherwise.
miss elizabeth:
Cite?
shrug I’d submit that holding or floating the kid above the surface of the water is quite a bit different than an infant actually swimming in it. I grew up watching aunts and uncles take my little cousins into the lake, but they sure weren’t dunking their faces in before the kids could even walk.
It’s really common these days. Our community center has “Mommy & Me” swimming classes starting from age 6 months or so. Mostly it’s about getting the kid used to being in the water, but there’s a certain amount of head-ducking and whatnot.
My daughter has been having swimming lessons since she was four months, and the very first lesson she was submerged under the water. Within a couple of lessons she was swimming underwater from the instructor to me. Now at 18 months she can swim a width of the pool underwater (they don’t have the physical strength to swim on the surface till they’re a wee bit older, though she’s close), and is learning to dive.
Also, when thrown into the pool she knows to turn herself around, swim to the surface, hold onto the edge and use her hands to pull herself along it till she can climb out. So hopefully she’ll never need it to, but this could save her life one day.
Both my girls started swimming lessons at 6 months - iirc there is a reflex that they lose somewhat older which ensures they hold their breath under the water - certainly both my 2 never struggled or choked when dunked under. In addition to basic swim tuition the classes are about swim safety - learning safe entry into pools (so always holding onto the edges), how to cope in deep water, not panicking when out of depth, relaxed when being splashed etc.
A couple of posters have asked about the legality of this in the UK. It is the 2010 Equality Act that provides legal protection for breastfeeding mothers - the government guidance to the law states the following:
“A business cannot discriminate against mothers who are breastfeeding a child of any age.
The Equality Act 2010 has specifically clarified that it is unlawful for a business to discriminate against a woman because she is breastfeeding a child.
A business may ask a breastfeeding woman to leave their premises if the reason for this request is not due to her breastfeeding. However, if the woman later claims that discrimination occurred because she was breastfeeding, the business will have to prove that there was in fact no discrimination.”
Now, had the woman in question decided the challenge this in court, it’s difficult to know how the law would be interpreted. On the one hand, they didn’t ask her to leave the premises, just the pool. On the other, they were clearly preventing from accessing a service (using the pool) because she was breastfeeding.
I suspect that if the pool management could point to a policy that states no- one is allowed to eat the pool, regardless of their age or what they’re eating, a judge would find in their favour, because their request for her to leave the pool would not be specifically because she’s breastfeeding.
Uh, no. Humans don’t have aquatic ape ancestors. That’s utter nonsense.
So then why can our babies swim?
The mother’s I know just exercise discretion and feed their kids at the side of the pool. They already have enough to deal with as parents, and have no desire to argue with pool staff about an imperative need to feed in the pool, right, wrong, or indifferent.
And if the father is there, it’s less reason to worry about the other child-- any screaming which hypothetically takes place as a result of being separated from mom for a few minutes, must have been dwarfed by the commotion, drama, and silliness of this situation.
That said, I’m not against her feeding in the pool for any of the reasons the attendant gave. I’m for taking the course of action which invites the least attention and strife. The majority of time where I hear someone state “I have a right to” or “because I want to”, it’s usually a conflict with the idea that they should do something because they can, instead of doing so because they should. Self-righteousness, defensiveness, and ego are almost always involved, which doesn’t lend to their credibility.
But, that is exactly how we got the right to reasonable accommodations to breastfeed in the first place. My mother didn’t have pumping rooms and laws protecting her ability to feed me. Somewhere, something changed that made the world a better place to parent, and it probably was some stubborn, righteous, argumentative people who made that happen.
“My God…it’s full of anuses!”
Poll results are surprising to me thus far; more balanced than I thought it would be.
@ Jennyrosity; I suspect that’s what’s led to the speedy 180 in the pool’s policy, that not only do they not want to fall foul of mothers protesting but potentially the law. Like you said they could possibly justify the policy on that basis but if even a whiff of legal trouble came their way I imagine they’d not want the risk.
I’m not disputing that, in theory or in principle, we’re in full agreement. However, the side of the pool is a reasonable accommodation, to anyone reasonable; the distinction is that feeding in public has objective/practical reasons, whereas feeding in the pool is largely doing so because you think you can, and therefore should. Odd place to take a stance, as told.
This particular story just seems like an example of reactionary silliness from multiple parties, as opposed to a preconceived assault or defense of a persons rights. Assuming the story went as told, the staff should have given the okay to breastfeed at the side of the pool, or she should have just taken up a spot to do so in the first place. As a parent, she doesn’t need the hysteria, baby gets fed, day progresses.
An Olympic sized(50m by 25m) pool contains 660,000 US gallons of water. Let’s assume the baby is a very sloppy eater and loses 1 oz of breastmilk into the water.
1 oz = 1/128 of a gallon. The ratio between breastmilk and water would be 1 : (660,000 X 128) or 1 : 84,480,000. Let’s further assume that a toddler pool is 1/10th the size of a Olympic pool, and we really have a ratio of 1 : 8,448,000 or 1 : 8.448 x 10^6.
As a reference point, the dilution of the heart and liver of a Muscovy duck which makes up the “active ingredient” in one of the worlds most popular homeopathic remedies, Oscillococcinum, is 1 : 10^400
For reference, there is approximately 332,500,000 cubic miles of water(including atmospheric vapor, ice, ground, and salt water) on the planet Earth And now we convert from cubic miles to US gallons and get 1 cubic mile = 1,101,117,147,352 US gallons. Earth contains roughly 332,500,000 * 1,101,117,147,352 * 128 ounces of water. That’s 4.6863546 X 10^22 which is WAY, WAY under what we’d need to dilute to for a homeopathic dimension. You’d need many, MANY more Earths worth of water to dilute that much breastmilk to homeopathic ratios.
This is not to say that the breastmilk : pool water ratio is significant, it’s really just an illustration of how ridiculous homeopathy is. All of the Oscillococcinum which has ever been manufactured, sold, consumed, etc. in all of history MUST have been made from some microscopic amount of duck heart and liver. Otherwise the company would have long ago consumed all of the Earth’s water in the manufacturing process.
I don’t think you know what you think you know. From the link given by MsWhatsit http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/breastfeeding-state-laws.aspx
Four of the five states which do not have explicit protections for public AND private breastfeeding may still have protections for public breastfeeding, or statutes exempting the activity from indecency laws. The only state whose statutes seem entirely silent on the issue is West Virginia. FYI, the law being silent on a matter means it is legal.
Enjoy,
Steven