Breast-feeding pic on cover sparks backlash against Baby Talk magazine

wrote:
it's da boob wrote:
Breast-Feeding Cover Sparks Debate

Babytalk Magazine's Photo Of Nursing Baby Angers Some Readers

NEW YORK, July 28, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) "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 wholesome parenting magazine, yet
another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight of a nursing
breast, 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.

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."

It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her
children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public, a subject of
enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term:
"lactivists," meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse
wherever she needs to.

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

Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover,
precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are
more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her
3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because
it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is
uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast.

"Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When
they see a woman's breast, they see a breast, regardless of what it's
being used for."

Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover
clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public.
"There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and
there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part, even part of a body
part."

"It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!" she
adds. "Mostly, they are trying to be discreet."

Kane says that since the August issue came out last week, the magazine
has received more than 700 letters, more than for any article in
years.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren,
a mother of a 4-month-old.

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

The debate rages at a time when the celebrity-mom phenomenon has made
breast-feeding perhaps more public than ever. Gwyneth Paltrow, Brooke
Shields, Kate Hudson and Kate Beckinsale are only a few of the stars
who've talked openly about their nursing experiences.

The celeb factor has even brought a measure of chic to that unsexiest
of garments: the nursing bra. Gwen Stefani can be seen on
babyrazzi.com, a site with a self-explanatory name, sporting a
leopard-print version from lingerie line Agent Provocateur. And fellow
moms recognized a white one under Angelina Jolie's tank top on the
cover of People. (Katie Holmes, meanwhile, suffered a maternity
wardrobe malfunction when cameras caught her, nursing bra open and
peeking out of her shirt, while on the town with fiance Tom Cruise.)

More seriously, the social and medical debate has intensified. The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently concluded a
two-year breast-feeding awareness campaign including a TV ad,
criticized as over-the-top even by some breast-feeding advocates, in
which NOT breast-feeding was equated with the recklessness of a
pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull.

There have been other measures to promote breast-feeding: in December,
for example, Massachusetts banned hospitals from giving new mothers
gift bags with free infant formula, a practice opponents said swayed
some women away from nursing.

Most states now have laws guaranteeing the right to breast-feed where
one chooses, and when a store or restaurant employee denies a woman
that right, it has often resulted in public protests known as
"nurse-ins": at a Starbucks in Miami, at Victoria's Secret stores in
Racine, Wis., and Boston, and, last year, outside ABC headquarters in
New York, when Barbara Walters made comments on "The View" seen by
some women to denigrate breast-feeding in public.

"It's a new age," says Melinda Johnson, a registered dietitian and
spokesperson for ADA. "With the government really getting behind
breast-feeding, it's been a jumping-off point for mothers to be
politically active. Mommies are organizing. It's a new trend to be a
mommy activist."

Ultimately, it seems to be a highly personal matter. Caly Wood says
she's "all for breast-feeding in public." She recalls with a shudder
the time she sat nursing in a restaurant booth, and another woman
walked by, glanced over and said, "Ugh, gross."

"My kid needed to eat," says the 29-year-old from South Abingdon,
Mass. And she wasn't going to go hide in a not-so-clean restroom: "I
don't send people to the bathroom when THEY want to eat," she says.

But Rebekah Kreutz thinks differently. One of six women who author
SisterhoodSix, a blog on mothering issues, Kreutz didn't nurse her two
daughters in public, and doesn't really feel comfortable seeing others
do it.

"I respect it and think women have the right," says Kreutz, 34, of
Bozeman, Mont. "But personally, it makes me really uncomfortable."

"I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a
mother and her child."

photo:
http://img.timeinc.net/parenting/web...6_BT_cover.jpg

i do not understand what the fuss is about. americans are so behind
the rest of the world when it comes to respect for the function of
breastfeeding. come on. why could anyone sexualize a baby feeding
from a mother's breast?

Because some people will sexualize anything. Would any of the BF moms
on here have a problem with someone taking pictures of their breast or
of their child breastfeeding? Doing this purley for their 'own
reasons'? It is within their rights to do so. (ask any celebrity)

That contravorsy is ridicules. I saw the mag in my peds office the
other day......no body paid attention to it.

The funny thing is that that plush thing that looks like a breast looks
a little too plush to me and the baby doesn't even seem to be latched
on. If you notice the babies smile. I believe these attributes caused
the image to look a bit unatural and thats why it caused so much
questioning.

But who cares! Our society should be more comfortable with breast and
smiling babies. Yes, breast are sexual! But it is the sadistic
hollywood teachings that tell woman that sexuality is evil.

A womans sexuality is God given and pure in its most natural states.


wrote:
wrote:
it's da boob wrote:
Breast-Feeding Cover Sparks Debate

Babytalk Magazine's Photo Of Nursing Baby Angers Some Readers

NEW YORK, July 28, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(AP) "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 wholesome parenting magazine, yet
another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight of a nursing
breast, 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.

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."

It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her
children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public, a subject of
enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term:
"lactivists," meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse
wherever she needs to.

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

Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover,
precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are
more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her
3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because
it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is
uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast.

"Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When
they see a woman's breast, they see a breast, regardless of what it's
being used for."

Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover
clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public.
"There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and
there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part, even part of a body
part."

"It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!" she
adds. "Mostly, they are trying to be discreet."

Kane says that since the August issue came out last week, the magazine
has received more than 700 letters, more than for any article in
years.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren,
a mother of a 4-month-old.

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

The debate rages at a time when the celebrity-mom phenomenon has made
breast-feeding perhaps more public than ever. Gwyneth Paltrow, Brooke
Shields, Kate Hudson and Kate Beckinsale are only a few of the stars
who've talked openly about their nursing experiences.

The celeb factor has even brought a measure of chic to that unsexiest
of garments: the nursing bra. Gwen Stefani can be seen on
babyrazzi.com, a site with a self-explanatory name, sporting a
leopard-print version from lingerie line Agent Provocateur. And fellow
moms recognized a white one under Angelina Jolie's tank top on the
cover of People. (Katie Holmes, meanwhile, suffered a maternity
wardrobe malfunction when cameras caught her, nursing bra open and
peeking out of her shirt, while on the town with fiance Tom Cruise.)

More seriously, the social and medical debate has intensified. The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently concluded a
two-year breast-feeding awareness campaign including a TV ad,
criticized as over-the-top even by some breast-feeding advocates, in
which NOT breast-feeding was equated with the recklessness of a
pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull.

There have been other measures to promote breast-feeding: in December,
for example, Massachusetts banned hospitals from giving new mothers
gift bags with free infant formula, a practice opponents said swayed
some women away from nursing.

Most states now have laws guaranteeing the right to breast-feed where
one chooses, and when a store or restaurant employee denies a woman
that right, it has often resulted in public protests known as
"nurse-ins": at a Starbucks in Miami, at Victoria's Secret stores in
Racine, Wis., and Boston, and, last year, outside ABC headquarters in
New York, when Barbara Walters made comments on "The View" seen by
some women to denigrate breast-feeding in public.

"It's a new age," says Melinda Johnson, a registered dietitian and
spokesperson for ADA. "With the government really getting behind
breast-feeding, it's been a jumping-off point for mothers to be
politically active. Mommies are organizing. It's a new trend to be a
mommy activist."

Ultimately, it seems to be a highly personal matter. Caly Wood says
she's "all for breast-feeding in public." She recalls with a shudder
the time she sat nursing in a restaurant booth, and another woman
walked by, glanced over and said, "Ugh, gross."

"My kid needed to eat," says the 29-year-old from South Abingdon,
Mass. And she wasn't going to go hide in a not-so-clean restroom: "I
don't send people to the bathroom when THEY want to eat," she says.

But Rebekah Kreutz thinks differently. One of six women who author
SisterhoodSix, a blog on mothering issues, Kreutz didn't nurse her two
daughters in public, and doesn't really feel comfortable seeing others
do it.

"I respect it and think women have the right," says Kreutz, 34, of
Bozeman, Mont. "But personally, it makes me really uncomfortable."

"I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a
mother and her child."

photo:
http://img.timeinc.net/parenting/web...6_BT_cover.jpg

i do not understand what the fuss is about. americans are so behind
the rest of the world when it comes to respect for the function of
breastfeeding. come on. why could anyone sexualize a baby feeding
from a mother's breast?

Because some people will sexualize anything. Would any of the BF moms
on here have a problem with someone taking pictures of their breast or
of their child breastfeeding? Doing this purley for their 'own
reasons'? It is within their rights to do so. (ask any celebrity)