I saw an article today that I found amusing. I first saw it mentioned on The Consumerist with a great headline: Disembodied, Baby-Feeding Gazonga Outrages Magazine Subscribers
They had a link to the original article on MSNBC: Eyeful of breast-feeding mom sparks outrage (not nearly as funny a headline – but what do you want?)
The articles talk about the cover of a recent issue of Baby Talk magazine that features a closeup photo of a nursing baby and the side of the mother’s breast. You can’t see any nipple or areola, hell, you can’t even tell it’s a breast for sure, as The Consumerist notes:
In fact, I’m not even really sure this is a photograph of a mother. Couldn’t it just as easily be someone without pants sitting on a baby’s face? Infant ass-to-mouth is certainly a hell of a less appalling than breast feeding, yet we’d wager to say would be met with less complaints.
Here are some quotes from the MSNBC article that just drive me nuts:
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.”
Then there was this comment:
“I don’t want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn’t want to see.”
Huh? What man doesn’t want to accidentally see any breast? And so what if they did? It’s not like it’s going to injure them. Sheesh people, get a grip.
And then there is this generalization – made by a woman no less:
“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.”
Say what?
