A few highlights from the article featured in Associated Press. I've added some commentary in red.
One mom of a 13-year-old boy shredded her copy because "A breast is a breast - it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."
Um, no. Actually a breast is not a sexual thing. I mean, I know men really really like them and all. Well, there are quite a few women who do as well. But if the intended function of breasts were to be sexual objects, I highly doubt they'd come equipped with these nifty mammory glands.
One woman said, "I'm totally supportive of it - I just don't like the flashing"
Unless it's spring break
She goes on to say, "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."
And which breasts fall into this category?
See, the issue to me is not over public breastfeeding. Well, not really. I see how this particular magazine cover got into this area of debate. I mean, it is a breast and all. But the article the picture is supposed to draw attention to is about extended breastfeeding. But people saw this and thought, Oh God! A breast!
Now I don't go out of my way to nurse my kids in the public eye. But I don't smother them with blankets, hide in corners, or make them eat in the bathroom. If you'd like to eat in the corner stall of the bathroom, feel free. But I'll pass.
Here's what I don't get though. This is a parenting magazine. The readers of this magazine are mostly mothers, oodles of whom have probably breastfed at some point in their life. What would they rather be staring at them on that magazine? This?
I mean there's just as much breast showing there. I don't see anybody crying gross over those shots.
No comments:
Post a Comment