This was the cover of BabyTalk magazine's last issue.
It made Yahoo news.
Women shredded the cover, refused to buy it, wrote letters, and generally protested. Some replied with gratitude and appreciation, lauding the magazine for challenging some of the conservative thinking that surrounds the issue. The fuss is over the sexual nature of women's breasts. This creates a HUGE barrier for women who are interested in breastfeeding in public. (Reminder: babies need to eat frequently. I've heard approximately every 2 hours. Reminder: the bathroom is a dirty place for anyone to eat in).
In my humble opinion, we could really benefit from some desexualizing of women's breasts. This image is one of the most wholesome and chaste images of a breast that I've ever seen. You can't even see a nipple, and who cares to look at the breast when there's a beautiful infant looking back at you? It just seems... odd.
The article
I agree wholeheartedly.
Yes nursing a baby is the epitomy of naturalness, wholesomeness and purity. Other folks have given up their normal rights to peer pressures from people of power and influence over the years(peers mostly). These people are misrepresenting humanity in many venues to meet their insecure ideologies. We never need to "de-sexualize" any of the sexes. We do that by demeaning it to a marketing ploy in ads, or by eluding to it ludely. Sometimes we make fun of sexuality because it has become uncomfortable to talk about as in politics and religion, or illnesses. Neither should we cram it down peoples throats that it is natural and they ,therefore, should not be offended or shocked. We just need to be sensitive by asking people if it is okay if nursing is done openly before them. If it isn't there must be a better place to nurse than a 'dirty' bathroom as you have suggested. I am hoping Mamn will comment on this issue too as she nursed all of our children.
I'm wondering as I look at the photo - is that baby really feeding? It looks to me like the nipple was airbrushed out like in Victoria's Secret catalogues. Maybe this baby is old enough to make eye contact while feeding. I agree that the breast should not/ whill not be desexualized. It's not something I'd want to do in public if avoidable, however I don't think it's gross.
Babies make eye contact while nursing around one or two months. really. I suppose one could look it up (I won't, but I won't mind if someone else does). And they start smiling at you while nursing (with some very humorous results around 3 or 4 months). I nursed all four of you, as Papa points out. I was not comfortable nursing around people who were uncomfortable. But for the most part, you don't just whip it out. There are ways to be discreet, feel comfortable and allow the people around you to feel comfortable. It's about the middle ground and consideration, on both sides.
My feelings are very much in alignment with my mothers on my comfort level for breastfeeding in public. Of course, what other women do is their choice and I'm fine with that. Now, is it just me, or does this baby appear to be sitting up? I feel like it would be more natural for the baby to be turned to be more w/ perpendicular to mom's face.
I agree that the baby does look a bit ackward.
This seems like a good time for momma's to comment. I agree that this is not a sexual picture, and one must wonder about those that feel it is. I'm assuming that women who protested this did not breastfeed. I was not comfortable exposing my breasts in public. I did however breastfeed in public places, including places like restaurants. It is not difficult to be discreet, so I have a bit of a problem with those that go for full exposure, often offending those like the protestors of this magazine cover and creating an unnecessary public issue. A suburb of Phoenix had this on the council agenda within the past year, and it made the daily headlines. Slow news day, in my opinion.
One of the women that was quoted admits that she breastfed, but felt that the cover was inappropriate. That was a large part of my confusion.
I definitely agree about it being a slow news day with those headlines, but breastfeeding and women's breasts are becoming a space of more and more debate (not too dissimilar from women's reproductive rights and abortion becoming more and more of an issue... although, that's old news). At any rate, with women being sued for breastfeeding in public (Wal-Mart), and with terms for those who protest it (lactivists, I think), I'm kind of concerned. Why, again, are we making such a big deal out of a frickin' BOOB?
This reminds me of an event in the life of Thomas Hardy (circa 1840-1928). After writing Tess of D'Urbervilles (1891), he received a package in the mail of ash. Someone had gone to the trouble of buying, reading, contemptuously burning, and returning his book to him. A messy bit of trouble, if you ask me. She wrote a letter to Hardy explaining how offended she was. It's been a century, isn't this behavior a little out of date? "Reactionary," seems to be the only way to describe it.
Oh, yeah, and, Yay for Mommies!
Have you read Tess? Ugh, frankly, I'm on the side of the ash-burner. . .
I think Momma really hit the nail on the head here. It's about discretion. On the other hand, Kristen, those who are attacking breastfeeding in general tend to be the religious right movement. That's why we're talking about a boob. They've all sorts of reasons, which, in my opinion, simply reveal their own unhealthy obsessions with breasts as sex objects (seriously, they make it sound like men are majorly aroused by a woman breastfeeding . . . hmm, I think it's just them!).