Breast isn't best: readers tell US parenting magazine

[rodeodance]

AFP/HO Photo: The August 2006 cover of Babytalk magazine. Readers of a US parenting magazine are crying...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060804/od_afp/afplifestyleussocialbreastfeeding


Breast isn't best: readers tell US parenting magazine

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.

[Democrat 4 Ever]

1. Oh. Good. Grief. These people are nuts. n/t

[Atman]

2. Americans are stupid fucking idiots.

An mother was embarrassed to see a breast? Her husband was uncomfortable? They claim to have KIDS? Hey, dumbass from Kansas...God didn't hang those on you to amuse your husband! They have an actual biological purpose. Like your BRAIN. Try using either of them!

:eyes:

[Deja Q]

4. If hubby was offended, does that mean he doesn't know what hers look like?

:hide:



Indeed, as you said, how they managed to have kids at all seems rather... freaky.

[Atman]

8. What's is amazing is, I've seen the cover of the magazine.

The entire cover is actually a baby's very happy little face. Adorable. The baby's lips are barely pressed up against what must be a breast, because it is upsetting the women so. I say that, because it is a profile shot, almost slightly behind the mother so you can see the baby's face. There is absolutely no nipple showing, and no real definition of a human shape...just a breast with a baby happily doing what babies that age are supposed to do with breasts. It is about the tamest "breastfeeding" photo I've ever seen.

[Deja Q]

3. I saw that cover. It ranks right up there with this one:

[AirmensMom]

6. LOL!

:rofl:

[AirmensMom]

5. "it made my husband very uncomfortable"

:rofl: What, he's never seen one before? Do they do it under the covers, fully clothed or something?

These people are nuts! :crazy:

[azurnoir]

9. She doesn't say

why it made him "uncomfortable":evilgrin:

[Teaser]

15. he was being chafed.

nt

[trotsky]

16. You betcha!

Under the covers, only the absolute minimum flesh exposed, MISSIONARY POSITION ONLY, while she thinks of knitting and he of baseball. Husband uncomfortable looking at a boob? How does he get ready in front of the mirror, then?

[azurnoir]

7. The subject of the article

was "Why don't women breast feed longer?", could this reaction be exhibit A. As far as breast feeding is concerned I have 4 kids 2 breast fed, 2 not. The 2 that were not breast fed suffered continual ear infections during their infancy and toddler years, the 2 that were each had 1 mild ear infection. 'Nuf said for me.

[Sinti]

10. These freaks seem deeply offended by the natural world in general.

Funny, they think themselves religious and cringe at the sight of their own god's creation. Fuktards...

[phillinweird247]

12. But blood and guts is not offensive in the least

These people are Fucked up.
Oh I'm so uncomfortable
BTW that picture was cute!

[Sinti]

21. Sure was - just adorable :) n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

11. Oh for Pete's sake

The baby's cheeks are bigger than the boob.
Link for those who haven't seen the 'porno' cover:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/28/national/main1844454.shtml

[AX10]

13. America's backwardness is showing yet again.

Breast feeding is part of nature. There is nothing wrong with it.

[Teaser]

14. Lady, it didn't make your husband uncomfortable

except in maybe a good way.

[Warren Stupidity]

17. This picture is shocking?

Good grief. And poor hubby was 'uncomfortable'? I guess they only want boobies safely objectified on tv attached to the usual anorexic scantily clad young woman, not au natural with baby in tow. I mean who knew that you could do that with a boob?

[kurth]

18. Hey, that's a very nice pic

There is NOTHING obscene or pornographic about it. That's nothing compared to what's on TV.

[Orrex]

20. That's a well-fed baby, that's for sure

What a little bundle! Keep up the good work, kiddo!


Adorable!


Oh, and that's a breast on a magazine cover? Better prepare for the apocalypse.

[Atman]

22. Boobies' natural habitat is serving a plate of wings an tall draft beer.

How dare this "Baby Talk" magazine try to make breasts about -- uhg -- feeding infants! It's just not right!

[WorseBeforeBetter]

19. "Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob,"...

the mother of a four-month-old said.

Wonder where she would like to see the baby attached. Poor kid.