Naked breast on magazine cover causes uproar
Categories: Pregnancy & Birth, Eating & Nutrition, That's Entertainment
You pick up a magazine and there, on the cover, for all the world to see, is a breast. Do you, A) yell at your teenage son for leaving his girlie magazines out again, B) remember that you need to renew your subscription to Art & Antiques, or C) freak out that a magazine about babies and parenting would show a baby nursing? It seems that for a lot of people, the answer would be option C.
"I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. Concerned that her 13-year-old son might catch a glimpse of a body part, Gayle Ash of Belton, Texas knew what to do. "I shredded it," she said, adding that "A breast is a breast; it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that." BabyTalk is a free magazine whose readers are almost overwhelmingly mothers of babies, and yet, a poll of more than 4,000 of the magazine's readers found that a quarter of them did not approve of the cover, calling it inappropriate.
I'm sorry, but if you pick up a magazine about babies, you gotta be ready to see a little boob now and then. As for Mrs. Ash's son, I guess he'll just have to figure out what breasts are for from magazines like playboy and hustler instead of BabyTalk. I sincerely hope that Jared grows up seeing a woman's breast as a source of nourishment for babies, not as "a sexual thing." But maybe that's just me. The cover is there; what do you think?
"I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. Concerned that her 13-year-old son might catch a glimpse of a body part, Gayle Ash of Belton, Texas knew what to do. "I shredded it," she said, adding that "A breast is a breast; it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that." BabyTalk is a free magazine whose readers are almost overwhelmingly mothers of babies, and yet, a poll of more than 4,000 of the magazine's readers found that a quarter of them did not approve of the cover, calling it inappropriate.
I'm sorry, but if you pick up a magazine about babies, you gotta be ready to see a little boob now and then. As for Mrs. Ash's son, I guess he'll just have to figure out what breasts are for from magazines like playboy and hustler instead of BabyTalk. I sincerely hope that Jared grows up seeing a woman's breast as a source of nourishment for babies, not as "a sexual thing." But maybe that's just me. The cover is there; what do you think?
Recent Posts
- Study Suggests Link Between Autism and Parents' Ages (2/09/2010)
- Just Chute Me! (Or: Do We REALLY Have to Play with Our Kids?) (2/09/2010)
- Atlanta Billboards Proclaim 'Black Children Are An Endangered Species' (2/09/2010)
- Canadian Hospital Offers Surgery for Obese Children (2/09/2010)
- Celeb Clan Close-Up: Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie and Maddox Hit the Super Bowl (2/08/2010)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 6)
Spring 7-27-2006 @ 7:13PM
"As for Mrs. Ash's son, I guess he'll just have to figure out what breasts are for from magazines like playboy and hustler instead of BabyTalk."
mwah ha ha ha ha!
Anyone who finds that cover sexual is a perv.
Reply
Nicola 7-27-2006 @ 7:18PM
I thought that it was a gorgeous cover. The look on that baby's face says it all. But then, my son is 2 1/2 and still nursing, so I suppose that I'm in the minority...
Reply
Sadie 7-27-2006 @ 7:21PM
"and yet, a poll of more than 4,000 of the magazine's readers found that a quarter of them did not approve of the cover, calling it inappropriate."
So does that mean that 75% of those polled supported the cover choice? ;)
Reply
Kira 7-27-2006 @ 7:23PM
I remember when my firstborn was a baby, we had some friends over. We were sitting around, watchin (I kid you not) MTV (gimme a break, we were babies ourselves). My son started fussing to nurse, so I got up to leave the room. One of the guys, WHO WAS SITTING THERE, STARING AT BOOBS ON TV, said to me as I made my way out of the room, "Thank you, on the behalf of all of us, for leaving to DO THAT."
Some people will never understand.
Reply
cathmum 7-27-2006 @ 7:28PM
what a beautiful baby, and a beautiful picture. Breastfeeding seems to be so controversial in the United States, why is that?
Reply
Joey's Mom 7-27-2006 @ 7:32PM
This is what is wrong with our culture. I dont know much about cultures around the world, but, if this magazine was on a European newstand..Or more specifically a country that supports women staying home and promoting breastfeeding, would there be such an 'uproar??' I think not. And we wonder why more people in the country dont breastfeed. People are so close-minded. Its a baby having lunch, nothing more. Geez.
Reply
mamaloo 7-27-2006 @ 7:37PM
Is that for sure a breast? Becasue, without seeing a nipple, it could be a particularly fleshy elbow or, I don't know, a shoulder - babies LOVE to chew on shoulders!
Really, in 2006, why is this an issue? And, such a particularly American issue.
Well, it sounds like this isn't nearly as big a brouhaha as the Mothering cover a few years ago.
Reply
Mary 7-27-2006 @ 7:42PM
Spring, you are absolutely right (and very funny)!! People who see that cover as sexual are sick, sick puppies.
I mean, really. LOOK at that picture. You know it's a breast because a baby is stuck to it, but really. It could be a belly. It could be an elbow. It could be just about anything. How on earth could that be sexual?
Even if the (gasp!) nipple were evident, it would STILL just be a baby having lunch. Honestly.
Sick, I tell you. The people who object are sick.
Reply
Kathy 7-27-2006 @ 7:56PM
Since you do not see the nipple (which would be the picture in PLAYBOY) -- it is a beautiful, natural picture! I breastfed two kids for over a year.
If people ENJOY FLASHING their breasts and are able to because of breastfeeding, that is wrong. Otherwise, it can be done without a scene. Also, mothers who complained about the magazine cover are probably just jealous of the nice size breast and are the women who do not love themselves as they are!!!!!!!!
Reply
Amanda. 7-27-2006 @ 7:58PM
I think the cover is beautiful. I love breastfeeding (and bottlefeeding) pictures. Hell, I love ALL baby pictures!
I don't get the big deal over it being a breast. It is a body being used the way nature it intended. Oh the horror. @@
Although I'm sure somebody will say that "peeing is using a body the way nature intended or sex is using a body the way nature intended and we don't see that on covers" and... well... while true, it is different. Breastfeeding is not the same as defacation or intercourse.
Reply
chris 7-27-2006 @ 8:05PM
I find it ironic that just to the left of the baby is a headline "why women do not nurse longer" ummm hello because people in the US have made the breast such a sexual object that we are appalled when we see a mother nursing on the cover of a magazine or even gasp in public..... sad isn't it?
Reply
P's Mama 7-27-2006 @ 8:11PM
I have that issue. I didn't even notice the breast, I was so captivated with the look on the baby's face - remembering fondly the year I spent nursing my child. I've nursed my daughter in restaurants, in stores, in parks and I've never gotten so much as a second glance in so doing. I'm sad for people who see the breast, in the context of a mother nourishing her child, as something sexually deviant. Get a grip. It's the most natural experience in the world, and more women are going to turn away from it because of these very attitudes!
Reply
Adventures In Babywearing 7-27-2006 @ 8:21PM
I think it's great. I even emailed the magazine to tell them my positive response... and they emailed me back about it! They are not even showing any part of the nipple... sheesh if someone has a problem with this! Breastfeeding is natural & wonderful- it is currently my son's only form of nourishment- How horrible if someone has an issue over THAT!
Reply
Amy 7-27-2006 @ 8:26PM
I think we should all take a moment to write supportive letters to the editors of the magazine (which you can do via the website) so that they know that most women do not think that breastfeeding is (or should be) sexualized.
I'm still nursing my one year old, and I plan to continue as long as she wants to. It's my only card with her - it always soothes her hurts, it always gets her to sleep, it always, ALWAYS works! Why would I give that up?? On purpose??? Because of a bunch of perverts who think that it's sexual? Puh-lease.
The mothers who bottlefeed don't have any idea that they've given up their best weapon against fussiness. They don't know that they could've nursed all those learning-to-walk bumps and bruises away. Poor babies. I don't judge mothers who choose to bottle feed - God knows we had a hell of a time and I wanted to give up more than once, but I sure do feel sorry for the babies who don't get to experience nature's perfect "pacifier."
Reply
Angie 7-27-2006 @ 8:27PM
I agree with Mamaloo. With the nipple covered, it scarcely looks like a breast. Certainly takes away any 'sensual' connotation.
Reply
momma2mingbu 7-27-2006 @ 8:32PM
We received a copy of that magazine and I thought it was *beautiful* when I pulled it out of the mailbox. We need to see more pictures of babies nursing like that so people will just GET OVER IT! Hello.....that's what they're for! I love the look in the baby's eyes.....you can tell that he's looking right into his momma's face!
Planning to write a SUPPORTIVE letter tomorrow!
Reply
heather 7-27-2006 @ 8:37PM
I unfortunately only nursed my baby girl for a few weeks, but I think it is the most natural thing in the world...a mother feeding her child. I think the cover is beautiful.
Reply
ann adams 7-27-2006 @ 8:42PM
There they go again.
It's a happy, beautiful baby doing what is perfectly natural. Indecent? No way.
Anyone who sees it differently needs to remove her/his mind from whatever sewer it inhabits.
I'll email the magazine as well.
Reply
Cathy 7-27-2006 @ 8:48PM
That picture is sweet. Way to go Babytalk.
Reply
Malissa Doto 7-27-2006 @ 8:57PM
You see more BOOB on the red carpet then on that cover. I feel like I'm surronded by morons sometimes.
Reply