• news
  • FRIDAY AUGUST 4 2006 6:00 PM

Mag's Breastfeeding Photo Is Too Titillating for Readers

Submitted by PopMonger

Edited by PopMonger

Tags: BabyTalk, breastfeeding, breasts, photo, readers

A parenting magazine is at the center of a breastfeeding controversy after featuring a nursing mother on the cover of its August issue.

BabyTalk, a magazine catering to new mothers, received hundreds of letters in response to the photo, with many readers calling it offensive and disgusting.

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."


Another woman, who’s in favor of breastfeeding, said she also wanted to protect her family from seeing unwanted breastage.

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


Because, of course, they always tell her which breasts they do want to see.
The photo was meant to call attention to the current debate over breastfeeding in public. A recent poll found that 57 percent of Americans oppose public breastfeeding, while a new generation of mothers - "lactivists" - are advocating for a woman's right to whip 'em out whenever she needs to.

BabyTalk executive editor Lisa Moran said it's the first time a major U.S. parenting magazine has shown a woman's breast.


Photo Location

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

Comments
ThisIsWhoWeAre

ThisIsWhoWeAre

Oakland, CA
July 2004

AUG 04, 2006 06:05 PM

That's just a cute picture of a baby having lunch... Who here sees something sexual in that image?

Lumenagerie

Lumenagerie

Seattle, WA
May 2005

AUG 04, 2006 06:09 PM

That picture needs more nipple!

SmellsLikeSciFi

SmellsLikeSciFi

Houston, TX
April 2004

AUG 04, 2006 06:12 PM

you know, it's a good thing that women had to create something ELSE for those naughty things to do for besides just being for 13 year-old boys and lesbians to oggle at.

Charley

Charley

SUICIDEGIRL

United Kingdom

AUG 04, 2006 06:12 PM

What the hell. Surely they should be focusing on the ubiquitous semi nude models in advertising if they feel the need to have a whinge about nudity. It's a baby for lords sake, having a snack.

stillnothing

stillnothing

United Kingdom
June 2005

AUG 04, 2006 06:17 PM

What's more natural than a baby breastfeeding?
Jesus Christ, Americans (and the rets of the world for that matter) should get a fucking grip.
Stop me before I start questioning why reality TV (unnatural) is allowed but sex on TV (there can be little more natural than sex, surely) isn't.
Grah!

mattbavougian

mattbavougian

Lincoln, NE
June 2003

AUG 04, 2006 06:18 PM

I think the real issue is that that child is under 18. How shameful wink

s5

s5

STAFF

San Francisco, CA

AUG 04, 2006 06:24 PM

bizarre.

Mothers who consider a photo of breastfeeding to be "sexual" should be spending a bit more time looking inward and re-examining their own moral values than criticizing a magazine. Obviously, I'm not a woman so I don't know very much about these things, but you'd think that someone who has actually breastfed would recognize that there's nothing sexual about it.

MessyJessy

MessyJessy

Fort Myers, FL
August 2005

AUG 04, 2006 06:26 PM

s5 said:
bizarre.

Mothers who consider a photo of breastfeeding to be "sexual" should be spending a bit more time looking inward and re-examining their own moral values than criticizing a magazine. Obviously, I'm not a woman so I don't know very much about these things, but you'd think that someone who has actually breastfed would recognize that there's nothing sexual about it.



word

Phantasy

Phantasy

Australia
October 2005

AUG 04, 2006 06:32 PM

s5 said:
bizarre.

Mothers who consider a photo of breastfeeding to be "sexual" should be spending a bit more time looking inward and re-examining their own moral values than criticizing a magazine. Obviously, I'm not a woman so I don't know very much about these things, but you'd think that someone who has actually breastfed would recognize that there's nothing sexual about it.



As a mother who breastfed her two babies I can say that you are absolutely spot on, the image is only sexual in their twisted minds, not in reality.

j0z3r

j0z3r

Hemet, CA
July 2005

AUG 04, 2006 06:32 PM

hellix said:
I think the real issue is that that child is under 18. How shameful wink



No no....The real issue is that any decent magazine shows both tits! What's up with this one tit, no nipple crap?

crzyboy

crzyboy

Pitman, NJ
May 2006

AUG 04, 2006 06:40 PM

Personally, I think it's a beautiful picture. If you get wood offa that, your a sick pup. If your worried your son or old man is gonna get wood offa that, you're even sicker...seek some friggin help. Now. Then get sterilized, please!

Punxboy

punxboy

United Kingdom
August 2004

AUG 04, 2006 06:41 PM

"I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."



Hang on... people exist that don't want to see breasts ?

IKCSmiley

ikcsmiley

Asheville, NC
July 2003

AUG 04, 2006 06:41 PM

OMG that picc is teh hot *fap* *fap* *fap*

tongue

Taz

Taz

I'm lost
March 2006

AUG 04, 2006 06:42 PM

are we even sure thats a breast? I mean, it could be a very large elbow. I see no areola. I always thought, from watching TV, that the nipple was the naughty part, but the boob was something to be shown.

And in regards to the reason for the cover...breast feed in public all you want, but for petes sake, please put a towel or a blankie or something over it.

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

AUG 04, 2006 06:42 PM

That image isn't even remotely sexual in nature. It's a mother feeding her baby.

Morons! This nation is populated by morons.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

Next

featured interviews