First of all I'm not impressed with everyone who keeps calling LW a doormat. Come on, catching a flu while pregnant can be dangerous, fevers can cause birth defects to embryos. Its just the humane thing to do to help if he doesn't mind. And hell my roommates would take me to the doctor if I had to go, and we don't even like each other. Surely friends can do that too and it doesn't make them doormats.

But, assuming this guy's roommate is on the lease with him, what makes him think the place is all really his? The roommate moved in over 3 years ago, and if they split everything equally its just as much his roommates home as his. I've had roommates who seemed like LW to think the place was theirs and everybody else was just living there second-class and that our presence on the lease was just to keep the landlords from being suspicious or something. Such deluded ideas about being the boss are not nice-person things to do and are not appreciated, let me tell you. The fact that he can't afford the place on his own tells me that ITS SHARED, he has no claim to calling it his, he's just one of those deluded types. Also the fact that the roommate asked him to move out seems like he must at least be on the lease. He'd have to be crazy to think he can ask the leaseholder to move out and he stay there. If he did, yes you all are correct in what you're calling him about being sociopathic and yada yada. But there's a lot more people like LW who just assume for some unfounded reason the place is theirs and act accordingly, I've had several roommates like that. LW can cry a river about how its his home all he wants, but we shouldn't all assume thats the case when I don't see anything in the letter supporting that statement.

There's nothing either one of them can do till the lease is up. But once it was up and there was a dispute over who should leave, I'm afraid authorities might have plenty of reason to come down on the side of the family. Not just because 'oooh its a family', but it seems LW can't cover the rent on his own while the roommate and girlfriend it seems can cover it, since they're asking him to leave. And that would be a pretty weighty reason for the landlords to say, OK non-LW-guy gets it.

Maybe they should talk more. The family could be thinking it just makes more sense for single guy to move because they are 3 and he's one so that would be easier. However if single guy owns the couch, fridge and most furnishings in the place, maybe not. It would be easier for the 3 people to move than to haul all that furniture to a new place.

Everyone seems to desperately want to believe that LW is the sole leaseholder. Well, what do you think of this situation if he isn't? Of those of you who do at least consider the possibility that roomie is on the lease co-owning the apt, why do you seem to think thats for show only and that the roomie wormed his way on it and LW has to somehow corner him into getting off it again so that LW can then throw these people out of "his" place? If LW has to do that, hello, its not just his place. Frankly if the roomie didn't get on the lease and just payed LW his portion of rent directly, then he's the one who's been LW's chump this whole time, for this very reason that nobody treats him like its his place too, even though morally and ethically, but not legally, it is.

A lot of people seem to think he "opened his home" to them, when come on, he needed a roommate, and roomie needed a place. This was a reciprocal favor, he wasn't the altruistic giver of kindness here, LW needed his roomie's help too. Once you share the apartment and someone else owns a fraction of it too, its not your place anymore and you need to get over yourself already. Thinking it belongs to you because you were there first is artificial too. That situation ends the moment you start sharing the costs. Otherwise what is the other renter paying for? Your ego?

If I'm not comfortable breastfeeding my child in public, its because there's a lot of jerks out there getting off on the free boob sighting and oggling it, because our society is immature enough to get some sexual thing out of it. People who are offended by someone else breastfeeding for the same reason, they feel something sexual is being imposed on them, are idiots and I'm not covering up for their sake.

Bill's just wrong on every level of his argument. I might buy the whole "intimate act" argument if it weren't an act that has to be done every goddamn hour. He's basically demanding mothers not leave the house for a year straight. Does he need to masturbate every hour?

And applebees needs to mind its own business. If they felt she wasn't being discrete enough, she probably just isn't that experienced at breastfeeding yet, but again, so what?

And to people who think lactivists are just being annoying, they have to be. People simply don't bother to think and talk about issues until you do something controversial. No civil rights progress has ever been made non controversially, or else the matter at hand wouldn't be an issue in the first place.