Apparently Babytalk magazine has published a controversial cover of a baby at it's mother's breast. It has generated over 700 letters to the editor. A lot of people thought it was inappropriate and some even found it offensive. It's just a baby nursing. OK the breast is not covered accept by the baby's mouth. But it's not at all erotic. At least the photo of the cover that cnn.com has printed looks pretty innocent to me.
It reminds me of the time I was having trouble finding nursing bras that fit me right. I went into Victoria's Secret thinking a store with this many bras just has to have something. (This was before V.S. became quite as bizarre, even obscene, as it is now.) I was completely naive. I just thought this is a store that specializes in bras and I need a specialty bra. So I went in and told them what I needed. The saleswoman said, "We don't carry nursing bras." I looked at her in disbelief. "A store this big, selling this many bras and you don't have any nursing bras?? Isn't the purpose of breasts for nursing???" She said, "That's not the image we're trying to convey." Well... I guess not. And the image they are trying to convey has become more and more clear over the years. It is certainly not one that includes a healthy respect for the integrity of the human body and its purposes.
Maybe the image on the cover of Babytalk magazine was crossing the line of modesty a little. But why all the fuss? Breasts are, after all, for nursing and the the magazine is about babies. Maybe it's not the nursing breast that's the problem but the twisted culture that sexualizes everything.
I'm still thinking about this one. You can see the photo at www.cnn.com. Any opinions? By the way, I first heard about this on Al Kresta's radio show on Ave Maria Radio. Great show.(www.avemariaradio.net)
3 comments:
I receive that magazine. And I didn't even notice the cover until the article about breastfeeding mentioned it. I guess women breastfeeding a child doesn't phase me at all anymore. And it has only taken me 4 months to get there.
Are paintings of the Madonna feeding the child Jesus inappropriate as well? Are the paintings of naked women porn instead of art now? How can the American public be offended by this magazine, but allow magazines like Cosmo to be sold in Grocery stores?
I can see the cover as being edgy but with mostly female readership how is that a problem? It was intentionally edgy to make a point about how unsupportive the American public is to breastfeeding. According to the article, 57% of Americans disapprove of women breastfeeding in public, 22% of Babytalk readers were made to feel uncomfortable breastfeeding in public at some point, 72% said it is inappropriate to show women breastfeeding on television.
I asked my husband about it and he said he was suprised by the cover, but not offended. We talked about if our son was 13, we would we have to hide it from him? We decided he wouldn't find it sexual because he would see me feeding his siblings.
I think it is wise to cover yourself as much as reasonable when breastfeeding in public. But comparing the immodesty of breastfeeding which is non-sexual to the obviously provocative clothing even young girls are wearing makes you wonder what people are thing. A friend of mine had some negative comments while nursing in a cry room at a Catholic church here in Steuvenville. A mother moved herself and her son away from her because "[Her] son is very observant." Why was a thirteen year old boy in the cry room in the first place and would he even notice the older breastfeeding mother when he could more easily "observe" the large amount of skin shown by the young ladies of that parish?
This society is crazy.
All I can say is sin makes you stupid, and this culture proves it.
Amen. The whole thing is so twisted. And i totally agree with you, Jody. Not even in a cryroom of a Catholic church??! It's how babies are fed!
Post a Comment