Any Boob Can Tell You

In about three weeks, the fam and I will be relocating to Spain for the coming school year.  (Don't worry.  I'll have more time to blog.)

Anyway, this is just one of the reasons why:

Breast-feeding cover upsets magazine readers

Associated Press
Jul. 28, 2006 12:00 AM

NEW YORK - "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. "I immediately turned the magazine face down," wrote another. "Gross," said a third.

These readers weren't complaining about a sexually explicit cover, but rather one of a baby nursing, on a parenting magazine. It's yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight, even as breast-feeding itself gains more support from the government and medical community.

Babytalk is a free magazine whose readership is overwhelmingly mothers of babies. Yet in a poll of more than 4,000 readers, a quarter of responses to the cover were negative, calling the photo - a baby and part of a woman's breast, in profile - inappropriate.

The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half, or 43 percent, of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public.

Just a couple of notes:

Once you get past the breast, that gaze is so visceral and so essential, it actually evokes a much less objectified sense of Mom.  Somatically -- if one does not resist it -- one is drawn into one half of one of nature's most powerful connections.  If you really lend yourself to the sensation, the greater anatomical feature you sense of mother are her eyes.

Re: "Quickie routines that work." ... Was the image so charged that even the editors couldn't help  a sexual allusion?  Or, maybe it's just a subliminal move to distribute more magazines?  ... On the other hand (and this is where I can get in big trouble with the "so called" moralists), isn't breast feeding supposed to be a pleasurable act, one which expands the (otherwise incredibly narrow American) definition of healthy sexuality?

(hat tip: Bob)

(Baby Talk magazine.  August 2006 issue.  Cover.  Lead article:  Why Don't Women Nurse Longer - link.)

Comments

[Rafael]

I find the whole "shock" to be so, well, so stupid. It seems those who abjore images like these can't help but see everything with a sexual eye. Grow up!

[ummabdulla]

And the thing is that there are so many magazine covers out there displaying women's breasts in a sexual manner. I could see the negative attitudes if it showed the nipple.

But to put this in context, it might be part of the "mommy wars", where there's controversy over breastfeeding vs. bottlefeeding, working mothers vs. stay-at-home mothers, etc. If the BAG thought the war in Lebanon was controversial, that might be nothing compared to this, lol!

As for breastfeeding in public, I know a lot of women who dress very modestly and would never actually show their breasts in public, but they breastfeed their babies all the time. They just keep themselves covered, either with long, loose clothes or a baby blanket. Wouldn't that satisfy everyone?

[Brolga]

Funny, I didn't even notice the breast. Yes, it was the eyes that immediately struck me. So beautifully alive and obviously in communion with the mother. I am sad for those that miss this.

[Nezua-Limón Xoloquinta-Jonez]

Well, my wife breastfeeds our daughter, so I have some personal experience and feelings about the reactions of the world at large in this area. And I've seen this happen in another place recently, this perverted reaction to our natural form and function. It also had to do with a company worrying that "children" would see a media representation of the same image. I guess that fear makes sense, because it is sick to let kids know that humans suckle their mother's breasts when they are little, to NOURISH themselves, and grow.

I find it absolutely disgusting that our culture is SO detached from the true nature of the human being that we now find cutting open breasts and putting in saline packets to make them look larger acceptable, yet using and showing them for their intended purpose is wrong....I just don't get it. Are women that self-loathing? Do they think those sacs of flesh are there to be boxed around, or stuffed into cute shirts?

HEY MAMA! YOU'RE A MAMMAL! SsssurPRISE!!!

You know what? Even if it WAS a nipple showing—so what? The milk can't come out without an OUTLET, aka "The Nipple." It is not your personal erotic object with no other meaning. It is simply a valve, a physical means to keep the human race alive, to keep the human child fed, to be as proud of as your nose, or your lithe and nimble quality, or your hair, or your leg.

Why is everyone so afraid of themselves? And of human sexuality, to boot?

Freaks!!!

[boxcar]

The thing that grabs me about the picture is the expression on the kid's face.

I think that expression is one that is so personal -- each one of us can only answer for our selfselves.

Me? I'm starting to remember why i used to believe in Jesus!
;)
peace
boxcar

[error27]

I not sure they meant "quikie routines" as a sexual reference.

[mugatea]

Wow, Spain, cool. Good soccer. Good food.
+ No loco presidente.

If a woman twirls a pair of pasties around in a pubic space, that's exposing one's breasts. If she's feeding the next generation in that same place? Come on.

Mrs. tea feeds our infant publicly, proud of it. As close as I am to her I'm not sure I've ever actually seen her boobs while doing this. I have noticed a few people leaving the area quickly. Most people are polite and don't take notice. It's kind of Taliban-like to think of this as a sexual act. Perhaps wearing nursing burka in public could be made law by our Republican government. Could be a great election year divisive issue, if that 43% number is accurate.

If we disourage young mothers from breast feeding it will only weaken us as a society in the future. It's really important for the bonding and the nutrition. The longer a mother can breast feed a baby, the healthier that baby will be in adult life – physically and mentally.

> Um said, "there are so many magazine covers out there displaying women's breasts in a sexual manner." Yes. The local grocery store check out line has more skin in it that a Cinemax presentation. Skin is nice, I like boobs and nipples but this cover is, in no way, sexual. It's beautiful.

The only boobs that offend this familly are the ones running our country.

[Hubris Sonic]

I wouldnt be surprised if this magazine had been astroturfed by one of the many 'christian' watchdog groups. I get 'Print' magazine and last year? or perhaps the year before they had a issue focusing on Sex in the advertising industry. the cover included the word, 'SEX' in big letters, they go tons of letters, i wrote the editor, who said to me, that after their initial shock they realized they were getting letters from regions of the country where they dont sell the magazine. and of course the 'outraged' faux unsubscribe requests from non-subscribers.

[Ksue]

I nursed all 3 of our daughters. When youngest was hospitalized, flat on her back with a leg in traction for 3 weeks, I had to lean over her crib rails and drop a boob out to nurse her. Lord knows I wasn't going to wean her at the very time she needed extra reassurance and comfort from me (and nutrition, for that matter -- have you seen hospital food?!).

The nurses were disgusted with me. Absolutely disgusted. The nurses!!!

[marysz]

Babytalk asks, why don't women nurse longer? Maybe it's because of photographs like this! Visually, this is a graphically powerful and arresting magazine cover but, if its intent is to encourage pregnant women and the mothers of newborns to breastfeed, it sends the wrong message. Like Ummabdulla points out, most women who breastfeed usually cover themselves and nurse unobtrusively. But so many visual images of women nursing show them letting it all hang out, so to speak. I think this conveys the impression that breastfeeding means going around with your boobs hanging out and no wonder this makes a lot of young women queasy. Nursing isn't about breasts--it's about closeness and intimacy between mother and child (not to mention all the health benefits). I wish they had shown a shot that shows the mother as a whole person, not just an anonymous breast as this cover does. In that sense, this photo (lovely as it is) conveys a misleading sense of what breastfeeding is really all about.

[mdhatter]

too many of us need a steaming cup of "get the eff over yoursef" thrown in our face.

I'm betting the objecters were NOT breast fed babies

[readytoblowagasket]

marysz, thank you for comments that weren't completely swept into the fantasy created by the studio photo shoot cover. This is an extremely photogenic breast, and I'm sure it's a model, that baby (also a model) and breast are not related. Beautiful baby, beautiful breast, beautiful placid polka-dots, beautiful fantasy, but not real life. Cover and article (which talks about real-life breast-feeding problems) do not match.

Maybe a feeling of being manipulated is what triggered people's negative reaction. People aren't always *accurate* about identifying what upsets them. And there *is* something gross about all computer-airbrushed fantasies, lovely and politically correct as they may appear at first glance.

[Carl Manaster]

I've been reading George Lakoff recently, who draws clear divisions between liberals and conservatives thus: liberals have a nurturant-parent family model of government and conservatives have a strict-father model. Nezua-Limón Xoloquinta-Jonez' comments point out just how essentially nurturant the act of breastfeeding is, how archetypal; this may contribute to conservative discomfort with it. Nurturance is contrary to the conservative worldview. Sick.

[jt from BC]

Breast feeding/Big business/Big problems/

> Breast-feeding is the most important form of infant nutrition-steady decline in breast feeding-post-industrialized era-milk substitutes-major threat to breast feeding-big business-global market 1983 est 3.3 billion dollars-1991 over 6 billion-invasion of the markets with a product *seeking to substitute (though poorly)nature's gift* to the new born child evoked public resentment in the form of various campaigns.(1998 study and stats)

> The 1981 World Health Assembly adopted the code (International Code of Marketing for Infant Formulae, 1981) with an overwhelming majority of 188 to 1 votes.

> The *one dissenting* vote was from the United States of America. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/grhf-asia/suchana/0426/hans.html

Let freedom reign and ignorance prevail is my guess.

[nothingruler]

I think a couple of readers have pinpointed the real source of discontent is the reminder that humans are animals. There's more tolerance for two kids making out in a park than there is for a woman breastfeeding with a blanket over her and the baby.

You'd think that breasts shown in a sexual context would remind us of our animal nature, too, but there's so much cultural packaging and slickness around those images that we've disconnected ourselves from it. People are so weird.

[readytoblowagasket]

Too bad women of color, who have the lowest rates of breast-feeding their babies in the U.S., don't have time for chatting on blogs like the rest of us. Maybe they could provide a counterpoint to some of the white middle-class male views expressed in this thread. In their honor, I think we should therefore proceed cautiously when espousing notions that babies who aren't breast-fed are somehow inferior and their mothers ignorant — even if it's intended as a joke or to validate our superior education levels.

Sometimes white liberals are no more reflective than white conservatives.

[Carol]

It is interesting that the notion of humans as lactating mammals upsets people, but the media are full of humans as rutting animals and that is ok.

So it isn't the animality of the picture, it is the disquieting notion that the child is in some sort of sexual relation to the mother because the only pictures we usually see of breasts are of a sexual and titillating nature. This notion of course is nonsense (and yes I nursed my daughters many moons ago). Not all human behavior relates to sex, Freud notwithstanding. No more than all animal behavior relates to sex.

[eRobin]

Enjoy Spain. You're a lucky guy.

I'm with the people who didn't even notice the breast. I recognized the baby's expression from years of nursing my kids. I didn't need to see the breast to know what I was looking at.

It's a beautiful image. Nursing babies are among my favorite things in the world to see.

[jt from BC]

rtbag > if your comment is to me consider:

> Let freedom reign (for Big business) and ignorance (withholding nutritional content etc) prevail (for consumers) is my guess.
This was not intended as a joke but an observation based on many factors and facts
My opinions are extrapolated from this study *on third world countries* if you had taken three minutes to check my link you would note that what follows is but one example:
"An inverse relationship is observed between socioeconomic status and breast-feeding: the lower income groups pay a heavier price from being deprived of breast milk, for they miss the natural immunity it provides. They are vulnerable to infection not just from unhygienic surroundings, but also due to unsterilized bottles and nipples, unpotable water, excessive dilution of formula due to poverty, and illiteracy. Babies that are exclusively breast-fed are less likely to suffer from diarrhea and upper respiratory illnesses"
This study indicates many other social, cultural, economic issues facing third world countries. It should be noted that US foreign Aid pushed these good with all the usual largess and hoopla.
In first world countries the issues may differ, but persons living in poverty frequently make limited and uniformed choices everywhere

[Darryl Pearce]

...it's natural.

But those who take offense are ...are either supernatural or unnatural.

[Keir]

As a regular reader and occassional commenter of this once respectable website, I was shocked and appalled to witness a naked baby in your current post. Child nudity is an affliction that effects some of the poorest children in the world; the Bush Administration, in conjunction with the World Bank and the textile industry has been working hard to rectify this problem in the hardest hit areas of Africa, South America, Asia and other non-terrorist dominated regions. Meanwhile, anti-American, freedom-hating Communists from right within the Land of the Free (Home of the Brave) have the audacity to flaunt freedoms of expression they're not willing to fight for by exposing the flesh of this poor, embarassed child of God to the eyes of the world. Cancel at once our subscription to BagNews but tell us first, please, what does it mean "breast"?

[Katherine Hunter]

the picture is adorable / the curve of the baby's cheek against the curve of the breast : charming and oh so essential

[Nezua-Limón Xoloquinta-Jonez]

Any attempt to distract the discussion into the idea that this cover is "gross" solely due to it's manipulative arrangement of the subject matter, rather than what truly did offend those who reacted so poorly to it (the content) is flimsy, and easily exposed as untrue when one considers that the reaction would be no different if baby and breast were less isolated, and the mother's face evident, and then less "objectified." If the camera was still that close to such an image and just as much breast were exposed, people would still freak out.

This point is evident everywhere, as the poster noted above who had to breatfeed her child and disgusted the nurses. If one is really not aware of the prevailing (disgusting attitude) to which I refer, one needs to get around, hang out more with breastfeeding mothers in public. It is ludicrous to further the argument that the strong reaction was about the "airbrushed" quality!

The offending implication IS the notion that we are animals. As was said above, many people are not aware of what they react to at all times. They do not chase their cognitive and emotional processes so closely. They just see, feel, react. (We all do this). These people reacting to this cover in a negative way may not know they are part of a faction of humans that, really, is still wed to Socratic notions of superiority over the animal kingdom due to our marvelous ability to think (and come up with....all the brilliant things that are destroying the planet today, wheeee!). Or they may have other reasons for reacting so strongly against the sight of something that should be far more prevalent in our society.

If you consider us kin to all the animals we so artlessly dismiss, it is easy to continue life as we know it. Exploitative and cruel to the animal kingdom. But LO if you see us as we are, members of a huge cooperative and interdependent ecology, you JUST MAY have to change the way you live. And we can't have that. Not in the New World Order, especially. That would interfere with everything.

(PS: This innate fear of our animalness and distrust of our natural selves and the natural world is the same reason America is the only developed nation with such high (59.5% and falling) rates of RIC (Routine Infant Circumcision), despite the fact that no national medical organization in the world recommends the practice; why there are so many, still so vehemently ready to denounce it on illogical (emotional or religious) reasons. We're scared of penises that remind us of every other similar organ in Nature's kingdom! Just another way to feel apart, better than the rest of all the mammals.)

[jawbone]

I was immediately struck by the baby's eyes, then by the way the curve of its cheek was mirrored by the curve of the breast. This is a stunningly beautiful photograph.

I can't believe the negative responses.

[alyssa]

I've often thought the objection to breastfeeding was due to the societal conditioning that tells us breasts are for men to admire and play with. For a woman to breastfeed in public, or to see an image such as this in public is like stealing. How dare that baby get a breast?! Those are for men!

I breastfed both of my daughters for a year each, and it was an incredible bonding time. The benefits for mother and baby of breastfeeding are amazing and numerous, and I dearly wish we could reverse this anti-breastfeeding trend.