1
   

Mag's 'breast-feeding' cover adds to debate

 
 
Reyn
 
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:27 am
"A breast is a breast - it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."

I think this woman outa "get a life". So, if she had a newborn baby at home, and she had to breast feed it, would she hide that from her son?


Mag's 'breast-feeding' cover adds to debate

Associated Press
Jul. 27, 2006 02:21 PM

NEW YORK - "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. "I immediately turned the magazine face down," wrote another. "Gross," said a third.

These readers weren't complaining about a sexually explicit cover, but rather one of a baby nursing, on a wholesome parenting magazine - yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight of a nursing breast, even as breast-feeding itself gains greater support from the government and medical community.

Babytalk is a free magazine whose readership is overwhelmingly mothers of babies. Yet in a poll of more than 4,000 readers, a quarter of responses to the cover were negative, calling the photo - a baby and part of a woman's breast, in profile - inappropriate.

One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it.

"I shredded it," said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. "A breast is a breast - it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."

It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public - a subject of enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term: "lactivists," meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse wherever she needs to.

"I'm totally supportive of it - I just don't like the flashing," she says. "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover, precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her 3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast.

"Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast - regardless of what it's being used for."

Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public. "There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part - even part of a body part."

"It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!" she adds. "Mostly, they are trying to be discreet."

Kane says that since the August issue came out last week, the magazine has received more than 700 letters - more than for any article in years.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old.

The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half - 43 percent - of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places.

The debate rages at a time when the celebrity-mom phenomenon has made breast-feeding perhaps more public than ever. Gwyneth Paltrow, Brooke Shields, Kate Hudson and Kate Beckinsale are only a few of the stars who've talked openly about their nursing experiences.

The celeb factor has even brought a measure of chic to that unsexiest of garments: the nursing bra. Gwen Stefani can be seen on babyrazzi.com - a site with a self-explanatory name - sporting a leopard-print version from lingerie line Agent Provocateur. And none other than Angelina Jolie wore one proudly on the cover of People. (Katie Holmes, meanwhile, suffered a maternity wardrobe malfunction when cameras caught her, nursing bra open and peeking out of her shirt, while on the town with husband Tom Cruise.)

More seriously, the social and medical debate has intensified. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently concluded a two-year breast-feeding awareness campaign including a TV ad - criticized as over-the-top even by some breast-feeding advocates - in which NOT breast-feeding was equated with the recklessness of a pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull.

There have been other measures to promote breast-feeding: in December, for example, Massachusetts banned hospitals from giving new mothers gift bags with free infant formula, a practice opponents said swayed some women away from nursing.

Most states now have laws guaranteeing the right to breast-feed where one chooses, and when a store or restaurant employee denies a woman that right, it has often resulted in public protests known as "nurse-ins": at a Starbucks in Miami, at Victoria's Secret stores in Racine, Wis. and Boston, and, last year, outside ABC headquarters in New York, when Barbara Walters made comments on "The View" seen by some women to denigrate breast-feeding in public.

"It's a new age," says Melinda Johnson, a registered dietician and spokesperson for ADA. "With the government really getting behind breast-feeding, it's been a jumping-off point for mothers to be politically active. Mommies are organizing. It's a new trend to be a mommy activist."

Ultimately, it seems to be a highly personal matter. Caly Wood says she's "all for breast-feeding in public." She recalls with a shudder the time she sat nursing in a restaurant booth, and another woman walked by, glanced over and said, "Ugh, gross."

"My kid needed to eat," says the 29-year-old from South Abingdon, Mass. And she wasn't going to go hide in a not-so-clean restroom: "I don't send people to the bathroom when THEY want to eat," she says.

But Rebekah Kreutz thinks differently. One of six women who author SisterhoodSix, a blog on mothering issues, Kreutz didn't nurse her two daughters in public, and doesn't really feel comfortable seeing others do it.

"I respect it and think women have the right," says Kreutz, 34, of Bozeman, Mont. "But personally, it makes me really uncomfortable."

"I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a mother and her child."

http://org32.zorpia.com/0/2124/13595392.b3b34e.jpg
"Babytalk" magazine's cover depicting a baby breast-feeding stirred a storm of controversy.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 10,482 • Replies: 119
No top replies

 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:31 am
that's IT? that's the bloody picture? geeze louise, what's so controversial about that?! must be a cultural thing...
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:33 am
Quote:
"A breast is a breast - it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."


A breast is a breast - it's where a baby eats. Much of the world could give a rat's ass.

Quote:
"Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast - regardless of what it's being used for."


Because it's hidden, mysticized, eroticized. C'mon. That's just social conditioning. You think those dudes in the Amazon walk around with their loincloths pitched all the time? It could get hung up in the brush.

Anyway, so what? Why the hell are we terrified of sexual arousal? Are we afraid we can't control ourselves or something? SHAME! SHAME ON YOU FOR BEING A LIVING CREATURE!
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:34 am
I have great fear of breasts, I often think i will die smothered by breasts ( I do like nipples however)
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:35 am
Better than dying amongst butt cheeks, no?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:37 am
patiodog wrote:
Better than dying amongst butt cheeks, no?

There are no nipples on butt cheeks. (well, not usually)
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:37 am
There aren't?

I should really get those looked at.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:38 am
p'dog, have you considered application to the Dys Poopity Heads Organization?
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:39 am
Is there a pee test?

I always fail those. I'm shy.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:43 am
Re: Mag's 'breast-feeding' cover adds to debate
Shocked
Quote:
"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:44 am
patiodog wrote:
Is there a pee test?

I always fail those. I'm shy.

No problem, Lash also failed the pee test but was accepted without reservation.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:47 am
Pdog said it first - a breast is lunchbox by biological design. What a bunch of pansy-assed idiots.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:51 am
littlek wrote:
Pdog said it first - a breast is lunchbox by biological design. What a bunch of pansy-assed idiots.
You, of course, are refering to Viola?
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:51 am
What an outrage! A feeding baby on the cover of Babytalk magazine! Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:57 am
There was a woman doing that in Bojangles about a year ago.

I couldn't even eat my lunch after I saw that!











I was too caught up in watching the guys expressions when they realized what she was doing. Laughing
0 Replies
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 10:57 am
Typical for a society whose suppressed sexuality is anything but normal.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 11:16 am
The thing is, why I fear breasts, is that when a band of Arapahoe and Cheyenne first americans (Indians) surrendered to the US army in Colorado the then territorial governor sent the colorado militia out to their encampment (they were waiting to be sent of a reservation) the militia found that the encampment contained only women/children and old men because the men were out hunting game to feed the band and decided to canon-ise the encampment followed by a close kill with firearms and such and from the women they cut off their breasts to make tobacco pouches to show in the parade when they returned to Denver. When I first read about this (Sand Creek Massacre) I realized that women's boobs were connected to tobacco use which leads to drinking of strong liquor which leads to dancing the hoochie coo. To this day I have not danced the hoochie coo and avoid women's breasts out of fear.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 11:19 am
(grim)

I avoid breasts, not out of fear, but out of hand.

Because a breast in the hand is worth two on a butch.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 11:25 am
God, I don't even have a baby, and I know a woman can breast feed in public without overly exposing a breast.

jeez louise....after the baby is settled in, you take a light towel, blanket, sweater, what have you and pull it up over you so the baby's head is partially covered, and your breasts are covered.

that way, the baby can still look around, the mother can look down at her babe, and any people with sticks up their asses don't have to see it.

gosh, I mean it's the same principle as having sex in public people!
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Jul, 2006 11:35 am
Quote:
"There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part - even part of a body part."

<snip>

The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half - 43 percent - of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places.


We certainly are a nation made up mostly of Puritanical prudes.
0 Replies
 
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Mag's 'breast-feeding' cover adds to debate
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/02/2024 at 05:43:42