District Security Officer Prohibited Me from Breastfeeding at DMV, Accusing Me of Indecent Exposure

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Did you have some sort of scarring, traumatic experience in your past with a loiterer? Because you seem really, really hung up on the fact that the OP was *gasp* standing where she wasn't supposed to, and have somehow concluded that, because she didn't hop to and salute as soon as she was told to move, she lost all right to protection under DC laws. Did a loiterer take your ice cream cone or something?

Yes, exactly. I'm finding some of the posters oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Did you have some sort of scarring, traumatic experience in your past with a loiterer? Because you seem really, really hung up on the fact that the OP was *gasp* standing where she wasn't supposed to, and have somehow concluded that, because she didn't hop to and salute as soon as she was told to move, she lost all right to protection under DC laws. Did a loiterer take your ice cream cone or something?

Yes, exactly. I'm finding some of the posters oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering.

So let me get your position straight. It was OK for the OP to violate the law against loitering, but it was not OK *if* the security guards made a comment that reflected ignorance of the BF law, while not actually violating that law. Right? No wonder you cannot recognize the difference between people who think OP should have followed the law and people "oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering".

[Anonymous]

Look, we're not going to convince some of more intense posters that OP wasn't a security risk by sitting, standing or loitering in the hallway. And most of them believe that OP is lying about the indecent exposure remark. OP has some hidden agenda that simply isn't apparent to the normal sane individual who doesn't see conspiracy theories at every turn. All we can do is hope that some of these nuts move to a country where dissent is illegal and punishable by kidnapping and where they don't have to make any decisions for themselves as these are made for them by higher more intelligent powers. That's all I want for Christmas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Did you have some sort of scarring, traumatic experience in your past with a loiterer? Because you seem really, really hung up on the fact that the OP was *gasp* standing where she wasn't supposed to, and have somehow concluded that, because she didn't hop to and salute as soon as she was told to move, she lost all right to protection under DC laws. Did a loiterer take your ice cream cone or something?

Yes, exactly. I'm finding some of the posters oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering.

So let me get your position straight. It was OK for the OP to violate the law against loitering, but it was not OK *if* the security guards made a comment that reflected ignorance of the BF law, while not actually violating that law. Right? No wonder you cannot recognize the difference between people who think OP should have followed the law and people "oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering".

No, hon. If the OP was loitering, then it was fine for the guards to tell her not to loiter. But even if she was loitering, that doesn't make it ok for the guards to then accuse her of indecent exposure or otherwise harass her for breastfeeding. Loiterers are People Too!

And for the record: the word "loiter" starts to look really funny if you type it over and over. Loiter loiter loiter loiter.

[Anonymous]

Kind of like boob-sorry, meant BUMP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Did you have some sort of scarring, traumatic experience in your past with a loiterer? Because you seem really, really hung up on the fact that the OP was *gasp* standing where she wasn't supposed to, and have somehow concluded that, because she didn't hop to and salute as soon as she was told to move, she lost all right to protection under DC laws. Did a loiterer take your ice cream cone or something?

Yes, exactly. I'm finding some of the posters oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering.

So let me get your position straight. It was OK for the OP to violate the law against loitering, but it was not OK *if* the security guards made a comment that reflected ignorance of the BF law, while not actually violating that law. Right? No wonder you cannot recognize the difference between people who think OP should have followed the law and people "oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering".

No, hon. If the OP was loitering, then it was fine for the guards to tell her not to loiter. But even if she was loitering, that doesn't make it ok for the guards to then accuse her of indecent exposure or otherwise harass her for breastfeeding. Loiterers are People Too!

And for the record: the word "loiter" starts to look really funny if you type it over and over. Loiter loiter loiter loiter.

This is exactly what the guards did - finally, we all agree!

It wasn't okay for the guards to accuse her of indecent exposure. IF that happened, that is problematic...but that has nothing to do with OP being told to leave. She wasn't prohibited from breastfeeding, she was prohibited from loitering. What if she had been standing their naked, smoking a cigarette, and had been told to stop nursing? Would she have been removed for being naked or smoking, or for breastfeeding?

Laws apply equally to everyone. Even if someone (allegedly) insulted them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And if you read the original post, she complains about the indecent exposure accusation.

So do we have consensus that the guard spoke wrongly when accusing her of exposure?

If in fact that accusation was made, because that's the allegation from someone who has proved herself to be less than credible.

IF IN FACT the guards accused her of indecent exposure, yes, that was a poor decision. If it allows you to save face in your losing argument, yes.

Doesn't change the fact that OP was 100% in the wrong and this incident isn't about breastfeeding in public or even motivated by a desire by the guards to stop her from breastfeeding.

Did you have some sort of scarring, traumatic experience in your past with a loiterer? Because you seem really, really hung up on the fact that the OP was *gasp* standing where she wasn't supposed to, and have somehow concluded that, because she didn't hop to and salute as soon as she was told to move, she lost all right to protection under DC laws. Did a loiterer take your ice cream cone or something?

Yes, exactly. I'm finding some of the posters oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering.

So let me get your position straight. It was OK for the OP to violate the law against loitering, but it was not OK *if* the security guards made a comment that reflected ignorance of the BF law, while not actually violating that law. Right? No wonder you cannot recognize the difference between people who think OP should have followed the law and people "oddly obsessed with concerns about loitering".

No, hon. If the OP was loitering, then it was fine for the guards to tell her not to loiter. But even if she was loitering, that doesn't make it ok for the guards to then accuse her of indecent exposure or otherwise harass her for breastfeeding. Loiterers are People Too!

And for the record: the word "loiter" starts to look really funny if you type it over and over. Loiter loiter loiter loiter.

This is exactly what the guards did - finally, we all agree!

It wasn't okay for the guards to accuse her of indecent exposure. IF that happened, that is problematic...but that has nothing to do with OP being told to leave. She wasn't prohibited from breastfeeding, she was prohibited from loitering. What if she had been standing their naked, smoking a cigarette, and had been told to stop nursing? Would she have been removed for being naked or smoking, or for breastfeeding?

Laws apply equally to everyone. Even if someone (allegedly) insulted them.

Awesome--we do agree. If the OP was loitering, she shouldn't have been, and the guards were right to tell her to leave. If the guards harassed her about breastfeeding, they shouldn't have, even if she had been loitering. Huzzah! Let us never speak of this again.

[Anonymous]

Boob, Boob, Boob, Bump, Boob, Boob, Boobies, Gazongas, Bodacious Ta-Ta's, Fun Bubbles, Titties (and beer), Breast Guns, Hooters, Peepers, Headlights, bosums, nips, teets-next?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Boob, Boob, Boob, Bump, Boob, Boob, Boobies, Gazongas, Bodacious Ta-Ta's, Fun Bubbles, Titties (and beer), Breast Guns, Hooters, Peepers, Headlights, bosums, nips, teets-next?

DCUM can be sandpaper on the holiday spirit. Thankfully, we have some jokesters among us.

[Anonymous]

Thanks. My purpose here was twofold-to introduce a little levity to this discussion and to point out what the real issue is here. It ain't about loitering or 'hanging around'. It's not about security risks or disrespect for authority or hallways. It's about knockers. Melons, U-Boats, pointer sisters, yayas, sweater puffs, bronskis, jugs, bazookas and our continued discomfort in this strange society when they are used for their primary use.

[Anonymous]

Boomp

[Anonymous]

))

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Thanks. My purpose here was twofold-to introduce a little levity to this discussion and to point out what the real issue is here. It ain't about loitering or 'hanging around'. It's not about security risks or disrespect for authority or hallways. It's about knockers. Melons, U-Boats, pointer sisters, yayas, sweater puffs, bronskis, jugs, bazookas and our continued discomfort in this strange society when they are used for their primary use.

sweater kittens. More about sweater kittens than any of those things.

[Anonymous]

How many more pages do we have to do for the DCUM record?

[Anonymous]

In this country, scantily clad breasts are used to sell beer. God forbid they be de-sexualized and used to actually FEED a baby. What would happen to advertising???!!!