« Rules and how to make them... | Home | Rockstar: Supernova »

August 7, 2006


I don't post much of the idiocy that I find online but I just read this article and I am beside myself. Since I have no where to go with my outrage, I thought I would spew it here, dear reader. Aren't you lucky?

Readers of a US parenting magazine are crying foul over the publication's latest cover depicting a woman breastfeeding, with some calling the photo offensive and disgusting.

"I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one woman from Kansas wrote in reaction to the picture in Babytalk, a free magazine that caters to young mothers. "I was offended and it made my husband very uncomfortable when I left the magazine on the coffee table."

Um, ok ... first of all, what is wrong with a baby breastfeeding? It is healthier than formula, it is a bonding experience and, I hate to remind you all but THAT IS WHAT OUR BOOBS ARE FOR!! Is it because it is on the cover of a magazine and it is in our faces?

Hmm ... it is 1:15 in a Monday afternoon and, as I flip through the channels, I see commercials for erectile dysfunction, birth control, tampons, and Victoria Secret underwear one after another. Does any of this make anyone else but me uncomfortable? Is this a double standard or is it just me? Yeah, I can flip the channel ... and people don't have to buy the magazine.

Now, let's take a look at this a little closer. The only people who would have this magazine are people that either subscribe to it or are given a copy at the doctor's office. The magazine is called Baby Talk so I'm assuming everyone that reads it is a parent or an OB-GYN or a pediatrician ... on what planet would the image of a breastfeeding baby be uncomfortable to any of these people??

Breastfeeding, while totally natural, is extremely controversial. People get offended if a mother breastfeeds her baby in public. They also get offended when a baby is crying in a public place. Yet most public places do not offer private places for mothers to breastfeed their children. Breastfeeding mothers are forced to either stay home or relegated to the back seat of their cars in distant corners of parking lots. Why do we punish women for caring for their babies while, at the same time, hang huge pictures of half-naked models in window displays?

As for double standard ... Is it offensive to see exposed breasts on the cover of any other magazines? If you look at the picture, you will see that all that is visible is the round silhouette of a breast and a child's face looking loving up at her mother, not a nipple in sight, no cleavage, nothing sexual at all. Meanwhile, you can not pass a magazine stand without seeing extremely provocative images one strategically placed word away from pornography.

Does the breastfeeding baby make people uncomfortable because they think of breasts only as sexual objects? Does this send a mixed message? Does it tickle some inner wellspring of perversity that they are horrified to admit is there? Is America really that puritanical ... or that perverse?

I, for one, welcome the image as a reminder that our breasts are true wonders of nature. While nursing my children, I found a connection with my body that I never had before. At one time, my breasts embarassed me ... too big, too noticeable, always in the way and HELLOO!! I'm up here people!!! Yeah, conversations were sometimes awkward.

Motherhood put me in touch with my breasts (heh, heh, I said touch) and it has forever changed my attitude toward them. They are powerful things. They kept both of my children alive, literally, since neither would take a bottle. As for the pleasure I get from them now ... let's just say that nursing was a good thing in the sensitivity department.

Let me also say that I am not offended by nudity. Well, except for my own, that offends me ... but I enjoy looking at both the male and female figure. I am more offended when the human body is objectified, when it is used solely to garner attention or to sell something. Britney Spears naked and pregnant on the cover of Harper's Bazaar offends me more because she is using her pregnancy as publicity ... she wasn't the first one to do it but her cover was a pale trailer trash imitation of the original glorious cover shot that Demi Moore cover. But put a baby nursing on a baby magazine cover and there is an uproar?? Get over it, America.

And what is it with the women in this article wanting to hide the magazine from their husbands? I've got $5 that says their husbands have much more provocative and perverse images stashed away all over their houses ... the nightstand, the bathroom, the garage, not to mention their harddrives. Don 't any of them subscribe to Sports Illustrated? Can you say swimsuit issue? Don't they watch any sporting events? Even watching F1 (the upper crust of the racing world), there are girls in skimpy outfits that the camera always seems to find. Trust me, guys can find boobs wherever and whenever they want to and none of them have babies attached. No, that is just disgusting.

I wonder if any of these women watch Lifetime or Oxygen? Wall to wall softcore porn. Are they embarassed about that?

Amazing, the stupidity of a society that makes Paris Hilton a celebrity for having no talent and being willing to expose herself as often as possible yet they complain about a child breastfeeding. I, for one, am sick to death with the way women are only looked at as either objects of salivating horn-dog pleasure or bitchy, conniving ball-busters. Nothing like the the sight of one totally pure image to bring out the amazing hypocrisy in our society.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Prosemonkey published on August 7, 2006 7:28 PM.

Rules and how to make them... was the previous entry in this blog.

Rockstar: Supernova is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.