Does a nursing baby offend you?

[Koodauw]

by Jocelyne Zablit Fri Aug 4, 4:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Readers of a US parenting magazine are crying foul over the publication's latest cover depicting a woman breastfeeding, with some calling the photo offensive and disgusting.

"I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one woman from Kansas wrote in reaction to the picture in Babytalk, a free magazine that caters to young mothers. "I was offended and it made my husband very uncomfortable when I left the magazine on the coffee table."

Her reaction was part of some 5,000 letters the magazine has received in response to a poll to gage reader sentiment about Babytalk's August cover photo, which shows a baby nursing.

Several readers said they were "embarrassed" or "offended" by the Babytalk photo and one woman from Nevada said she "immediately turned the magazine face down" when she saw the photo.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," the mother of a four-month-old said.

Another reader said she was "horrified" when she received the magazine and hoped that her husband hadn't laid eyes on it.

"I had to rip off the cover since I didn't want it laying around the house," she said.

A national television program also ran a segment on the controversy, interviewing several people in New York who expressed disgust over the cover photo.

The picture in Babytalk was aimed at illustrating the controversy surrounding breastfeeding in the United States, where a national survey by the American Dietetic Association found that 57 percent of those polled are opposed to women breastfeeding in public and 72 percent think it is inappropriate to show a woman breastfeeding on television programs.

Babytalk executive editor Lisa Moran said though most of those who responded to the poll about the cover photo gave the magazine a thumbs up, she was surprised that some 25 percent expressed outrage.

"There is a real puritanical streak in America," Moran told AFP. "You see celebrities practically baring their breasts all the time and no one seems to mind in this sort of sexual context.

"But in this very natural context of feeding your child, a lot of Americans are very uncomfortable with it."

She said the controversy is all the more surprising in light of concerted efforts by the US government and health professionals to encourage women to breastfeed.

"Everyone is saying that breastfeeding is best for baby but there is so little support for it in public," Moran said.

She said the Babytalk cover photo marks the first time a major parenting magazine in the United States dares to break the taboo about showing a woman's breast and the outrage it has prompted is not about to discourage editors from doing it again.

"This hasn't scared us off at all," Moran said. "We're thrilled and hopefully this will help women get more support for nursing."

I don't see the big deal with this being on the cover of a magazine, its not graphic in any sort of way, just natural occurrence. However, I don't like it when people do this in public, something like the rest room, or some more private area is a more appropriate place.

 

[Leareth]

Oversensitive types overreacting.

Nothing wrong with it , perfectly normal nice image, there are always those who blow it out of proportion...

I have no problems with a woman breastfeeding in public either, most of the time you can't even tell.

 

[Lau]

That's really sad. There's absolutely no need to be offended by that in any way, especially when there's not even a nipple visible!

I personally don't have a problem with people breastfeeding in public. I don't even think it should be done in a restroom (that's a toilet/bathroom, yes?). Why should a baby have to feed in a bathroom? I think it's maybe nicer for a mum and her baby to go somewhere a bit quieter than in the middle of a noisy street or whatever, just so it's a bit more private and quieter for their sake, but I certainly don't think they should have to. People who are offended by this need to get over themselves.

However, I am slightly amused by "it made my husband very uncomfortable when I left the magazine on the coffee table". Why? Did he have to adjust his trousers?

 

[Queso]

Being a European an image like that isn't even out of place, let alone shocking. What is it with you Americans and breasts? A baby has to eat.

In addition, it's actually a really cute photo.

 

[emw]

The problem isn't that it was a picture of a baby breast-feeding, it's that it wasn't Angelina Jolie doing it.

Did he have to adjust his trousers?

Ha! The funny thing is, there's nothing sexual at all about that picture.

This is a perfectly natural act, and one that I find no issue with if women choose to breast-feed publicly. My wife has breast fed our children, and will do so with the third. Women in general are very discreet about this - they no more want to "expose themselves" than most people want to see it (or will admit to wanting to see it).

 

[njmac]

Usually women who nurse are pretty discreet about it because they don't want people looking at them either.

I think the people in the article are overreacting in a big way. Rip the cover off so your husband doesn't see it? Yeah, that marriage is stable

 

[jsw]

Being a European an image like that isn't even out of place, let alone shocking.

I just don't understand you Europeans and your views on these sorts of things.

That cover is pornography, plain and simple.

If it were a picture of a dead or injured child in a war-torn area with a nice tank in the background, that'd be fine.

If it were a side view of Britney Spears' breast with no baby, also fine.

But a nursing infant? Please. That's akin to showing someone in the act of defecating.

And as far as doing it in public is concerned: people should limit themselves to doing normal, natural things, like smoking, shopping, and eating. Something perverse like breast-feeding should be hidden in shame.

 

[MrSmith]

This is from the nation that finds the word 'toilet' disgusting and has to ask for the 'bathroom' in a restaurant

And it seems to be the women that find it offensive. Having to hide it in case her husband sees it?! Why? Is he going to vomit...or be unable to control his pants? My mother's answer to this kind of thing is a stock, "Well, people go to the toilet everyday but you don't see pictures of that everywhere". That's a completely different thing, i.e. dirty waste products. Breastfeeding is a clean, natural procedure and - most importantly - this is on the cover of a magazine concerned with caring for babies! Any grown man who feels uncomfortable when he sees a picture of a breast (sans nipple, to boot) must have a lot of issues brewing away in his psyche.

As for breastfeeding in public, it's OK by me, as long as I don't have to see babies bring milk up. I've had three of my own so to me it's no big deal. Maybe other sectors of the population will have a different opinion.

 

[patrick0brien]

In my little world this is in a similar category as "someone donating to the toilet". We know it happens, just don't flaunt it.

Don't we have enough to worry about?

Edit: That's not to say I feel this disgusting. It's just no big deal, as long as people let it be no big deal.

 

[nbs2]

Just to echo the complaints of the other posts here, I would love to see how people are willing to let the sexual connotation of breasts (e.g. Brittany Spears Rolling Stone, Victoria's Secret catalog, etc) slide and get offended by this. I hope the offended people end up barren, divorced, lonely and never have contact with children.

 

[MrSmith]

I just don't understand you Europeans and your views on these sorts of things.

That cover is pornography, plain and simple.

If it were a picture of a dead or injured child in a war-torn area with a nice tank in the background, that'd be fine.

If it were a side view of Britney Spears' breast with no baby, also fine.

But a nursing infant? Please. That's akin to showing someone in the act of defecating.

And as far as doing it in public is concerned: people should limit themselves to doing normal, natural things, like smoking, shopping, and eating. Something perverse like breast-feeding should be hidden in shame.

Who will you catch...?

 

[emw]

In my little world this is in a similar category as "someone donating to the toilet".

So breast-feeding a child is the same as taking a ****? Interesting viewpoint, I suppose.

Edit: After reading your edit, I think I understand your point more clearly: "Don't announce to the world you're about to breast-feed and make a production of it, just do it." I can agree with that.

 

[Danksi]

I'd find a picture of a baby drinking from a bottle of formula much much much more disturbing than that.

 

[quagmire]

And as far as doing it in public is concerned: people should limit themselves to doing normal, natural things, like smoking, shopping, and eating. Something perverse like breast-feeding should be hidden in shame.

Why is Breast feeding shameful? Breasts are part of the womens body for a reason and sorry it isn't for intercourse. The main reason for breasts is so the mother can feed her kids. Breast feeding is normal and natural. And you are a hypocrite. Eating is natural, but not breast feeding? The baby is eating the milk from the breast as a part of the babies diet. Smoking isn't natural. Smoking while accepted in society, kills you and humans aren't supposed to do it. What is next? Crystal Meth being normal and Natural when it is being compared to Breast feeding?

 

[CANEHDN]

I don't even think it should be done in a restroom (that's a toilet/bathroom, yes?). Why should a baby have to feed in a bathroom?

Much agreed. If people think a mother should feed their baby in the washroom then they should have to eat their McDonalds in the washroom. If people don't like it or feel offended by it, then don't look. And if women are saying their husbands are offended, that's just their way of saying that that woman who was breastfeeding had better looking boobs than her and is jealous that their husbands might have seen it.

Don't we have enough to worry about?

You don't have to worry about it. It's none of your business. That's one problem I've seen with people. They think everything that's going on around them is their business.

 

[dejo]

How do we know that's not an ass-kissing baby?

 

[kretzy]

Why is Breast feeding shameful? Breasts are part of the womens body for a reason and sorry it isn't for intercourse. The main reason for breasts is so the mother can feed her kids. Breast feeding is normal and natural. And you are a hypocrite. Eating is natural, but not breast feeding? The baby is eating the milk from the breast as a part of the babies diet. Smoking isn't natural. Smoking while accepted in society, kills you and humans aren't supposed to do it. What is next? Crystal Meth being normal and Natural when it is being compared to Breast feeding?

Someone's sarcasm detector is offline.

 

[Lau]

Ha! The funny thing is, there's nothing sexual at all about that picture.

Sorry, yeah, it was just the impression I got from the article.

What were these women so concerned about? That their husbands would start furiously tugging away over the picture?(sorry!)That they would be unable to control themselves if they ever saw a woman breastfeeding in public? That they would suddenly want to be breastfed?! I'm not being flippant (much!) but I really don't understand what reaction the women were expecting their husbands to have.

I can kind of understand people not liking seeing breastfeeding in public if they've been brought up to believe that breasts are 'dirty' or that it's somehow shameful (although I think they're totally wrong), but I'm genuinely racking my brains here over what the women think their husbands are going to do.

 

[Shaun.P]

I just don't understand you Europeans and your views on these sorts of things.

That cover is pornography, plain and simple.

If it were a picture of a dead or injured child in a war-torn area with a nice tank in the background, that'd be fine.

If it were a side view of Britney Spears' breast with no baby, also fine.

But a nursing infant? Please. That's akin to showing someone in the act of defecating.

And as far as doing it in public is concerned: people should limit themselves to doing normal, natural things, like smoking, shopping, and eating. Something perverse like breast-feeding should be hidden in shame.

Are you kidding?

 

[Tanglewood]

by Jocelyne Zablit Fri Aug 4, 4:38 AM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - Readers...

"There is a real puritanical streak in America," Moran told AFP. "You see celebrities practically baring their breasts all the time and no one seems to mind in this sort of sexual context.

"But in this very natural context of feeding your child, a lot of Americans are very uncomfortable with it."

When I read this part I was thinking about Robin Williams 2002 Live on Broadway Standup.

Episcopal is basically Church of England which was Henry the 8th
breaking away from the Catholic Church: "I'm the f***ing Pope now!"
Than people broke away from that church,
the Calvinists found him to be too loose.
Than the Puritans broke away from the Calvinists, our ancestors,
people so uptight, the English kicked them out.
How anal do you have to be for the English to go: "Get the f*** out!"
"Take your pimp shoes and go!"
And they land here in America...

Seriously the over-reaction of these people, "Another reader said she was "horrified" when she received the magazine and hoped that her husband hadn't laid eyes on it." Is insane.

 

[Lau]

Who will you catch...?

quagmire, mainly.

 

[iGary]

I don't personally mind the image, and yes, I do think Americans could be a little less sensitive in areas like this (I mean what is the worst question your kids could ask you about said image), but I think breast feeding should be as discreet as the person can make it for others. Just my personal feeling.

 

[njmac]

I just don't understand you Europeans and your views on these sorts of things.

That cover is pornography, plain and simple.

If it were a picture of a dead or injured child in a war-torn area with a nice tank in the background, that'd be fine.

If it were a side view of Britney Spears' breast with no baby, also fine.

But a nursing infant? Please. That's akin to showing someone in the act of defecating.

And as far as doing it in public is concerned: people should limit themselves to doing normal, natural things, like smoking, shopping, and eating. Something perverse like breast-feeding should be hidden in shame.

What's really disturbing is that people are taking you seriously. Sarcasm is a dying art.

I'd find a picture of a baby drinking from a bottle of formula much much much more disturbing than that.

But don't jump to conclusions... the baby could be adopted or the mother is unable to nurse. People are always so judgemental about mothers.

 

[nbs2]

I think breast feeding should be as discreet as the person can make it for others.

I can see your point there. Discretion is proper - I don't want to see that Kansas cow ever chew with her mouth open or talk with her mouth full either.

 

[Lau]

I can see the case for discretion, but I think most women want to be fairly discreet themselves.