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

The human imagination certainly is a powerful thing, and there's little
doubt that the fantasy is often more erotic than reality. But why fantasies
about a baby being breast-fed?, can't they do better than that?. In any case
it's unusual in my experience for a breast-feeding mother to show very much
breast at all, bearing in mind that most of the time the baby's head is in
the way. I find it strange that any man could find that a turn-on, or, come
to that, why anyone, man or woman, could find it offensive.

So, yeah, there is a demand for just about any kind of porn or pseudo-porn
that can be thought up. It's gotta be the testosterone again.
--
Agreed, though I don't see how that picture could possibly be classed as
even "psuedo porn".

David.

Some of the fantasies have to do with the breasts themselves, not the
kid. So it doesn't really matter what's attached to them.

But there are guys into lactation fantasies--there are plenty of movies
available. I'd say "EWW" if I were 15 instead of forty-something.


Personally, I'm a fan of the boobies but it squicks me a lot when I see
a woman on a mall bench breastfeeding. Go figure. Maybe because it
seems as if it should be private, like a woman doing some kind of
period-related thing. I just don't wanna see it in a public setting.

On topic comment: the BT controversy just shows that the breast-feeding
"movement" isn't as widespread or easily tolerated as the latest news
stories and articles I've been reading. I don't feel so old and behind
the times, now, for not being "with the program."




Jules W.

"Jules W." wrote in message
ups.com...

Personally, I'm a fan of the boobies but it squicks me a lot when I see
a woman on a mall bench breastfeeding. Go figure. Maybe because it
seems as if it should be private, like a woman doing some kind of
period-related thing. I just don't wanna see it in a public setting.

A circular argument. You don't want to see women breastfeeding in public
"because it's something that should be done in private". Why should it be
done in private?, because people like you object to it being done in public.
I notice that you haven't actually given us a reason for your objection
beyond your own irrational squeamishness.

David.

Curtis R Anderson wrote:
wrote:
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?

For some men, like those who aren't getting any sex at home, it gives
them a fantasy to wank to. Human imagination is a powerful thing in that
regard. (And I'm writing this very carefully in a public place, too!)
So, yeah, there is a demand for just about any kind of porn or
pseudo-porn that can be thought up. It's gotta be the testosterone again.

I don't think it's limited to men who aren't getting any sex at home;
besides, a man who needs something to *wank to* probably won't be
grabbing a copy of "Baby Talk" -- he'd do much better with any Calvin
Klein underwear billboard....
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~davidtoc/i...ard_sep_04.jpg
(where are the outraged citizens there??? The girl looks like she's
getting ready to felch him).

I think the problem here is not that it's outrageous to "sexualize" a
breast if it's feeding an infant but the idea that anything even
remotely sensual is somehow amoral and indecent. Of course a breast is
"sexualized" -- it's a female sex organ. It's disingenuous to suggest
that a man will completely shut off any sexual association when he sees
a woman breastfeeding, but most are able to handle it in a mature way
and are in control of themselves; it's not like they're all sprouting
rock-hard boners when some exhausted new mother with undereye bags, a
residual 30 pounds of baby weight and a big floppy blouse with an
E-Z-snap nursing hatch discreetly pops out a breast to feed her baby.
It's still a breast, and still has a sexual aspect to it. But so what?
That doesn't mean it's BAD or LEWD or indecent. As a matter of
courtesy, I think that women who nurse should be a little discreet
since it does make plenty of people somewhat uncomfortable--especially
those who haven't been through it, teenagers, dinner companions.... but
to consider an image like that on a baby magazine indecent is insane!

Plenty of body parts are sensual/sexualized, hands, mouth, small of the
back... somebody eating a banana or licking an ice-cream cone can also
suggest sex to an onlooker; it doesn't make it obscene. It's just
reality, and men are more than capable of handling an image of a baby
and a completely inocuous breast, like the one on the cover. I think
it's the men who do sprout huge boners at a cover like this -- and feel
horribly guilty about it -- who're all up in arms about it. As are
their repressed and possessive wives. Christ - the only person who
probably *doesn't* sexualize breasts is an exhausted new mom who's
breastfeeding. The last thing she wants when she finally hits the sack
is a husband slobbering away at them. (This is a short-lived phase!)

doomella wrote:
Curtis R Anderson wrote:

wrote:

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?

For some men, like those who aren't getting any sex at home, it gives
them a fantasy to wank to. Human imagination is a powerful thing in that
regard. (And I'm writing this very carefully in a public place, too!)
So, yeah, there is a demand for just about any kind of porn or
pseudo-porn that can be thought up. It's gotta be the testosterone again.


I don't think it's limited to men who aren't getting any sex at home;
besides, a man who needs something to *wank to* probably won't be
grabbing a copy of "Baby Talk" -- he'd do much better with any Calvin
Klein underwear billboard....
http://dolphin.upenn.edu/~davidtoc/i...ard_sep_04.jpg
(where are the outraged citizens there??? The girl looks like she's
getting ready to felch him).

I think the problem here is not that it's outrageous to "sexualize" a
breast if it's feeding an infant but the idea that anything even
remotely sensual is somehow amoral and indecent. Of course a breast is
"sexualized" -- it's a female sex organ.

It's a sex "organ"?

'Splain it to me.
--
Phyl

"Phyl" wrote in message
nk.net...
doomella wrote:

I think the problem here is not that it's outrageous to "sexualize" a
breast if it's feeding an infant but the idea that anything even
remotely sensual is somehow amoral and indecent. Of course a breast is
"sexualized" -- it's a female sex organ.

It's a sex "organ"?

'Splain it to me.

Like I haven't been a typing fool on this topic already. What's to 'splain?
I did a quick Google search and if you scroll down you'll find 'em in the
list of female reproductive organs. http://www.healthac.org/index.html
Besides, breasts are organs and they do play a role in sex, so it's really
not a stretch to call them "sex organs". (If they weren't, men probably
wouldn't gape at them , teenagers in California wouldn't be getting Double
D's as graduation gifts and Hooter's would be out of business. There aren't
similar tacky chains for blondes or women with enormous thumbs or enormous
calves.) I guess they're generally considered "secondary" sexual
organs...or characteristics...

"avery" wrote in message
...

"Phyl" wrote in message
nk.net...
doomella wrote:

I think the problem here is not that it's outrageous to "sexualize" a
breast if it's feeding an infant but the idea that anything even
remotely sensual is somehow amoral and indecent. Of course a breast is
"sexualized" -- it's a female sex organ.

It's a sex "organ"?

'Splain it to me.

Like I haven't been a typing fool on this topic already. What's to
'splain?
I did a quick Google search and if you scroll down you'll find 'em in the
list of female reproductive organs. http://www.healthac.org/index.html
Besides, breasts are organs and they do play a role in sex, so it's really
not a stretch to call them "sex organs". (If they weren't, men probably
wouldn't gape at them , teenagers in California wouldn't be getting
Double D's as graduation gifts and Hooter's would be out of business.
There aren't similar tacky chains for blondes or women with enormous
thumbs or enormous calves.) I guess they're generally considered
"secondary" sexual organs...or characteristics...
A matter of opinion. I wouldn't have described them as "sex organs", as they
are not part of the reproductive system. OTOH they are undoubtely part of
what a woman uses to attract male attention so I suppose viewed like that
you could, just about, get away with using that term (though I still
wouldn't). None of this, though, has anything to say to the issue of
breast-feeding in public. In western society the flaunting of breasts in
public is totally acceptable as long as some token effort to cover the
nipple is made. Breastfeeding women on the other hand don't flaunt them in
my experience, usually managing to carry out the entire procedure without
showing very much at all. If it's really the exposure of breast that worries
people then they should be targetting low-cut evening gowns and strappy
tops, not breastfeeding mums!. Since, however, it seems to be breastfeeding
that causes the problem I guess that the objectors just don't like to be
reminded of the non-sexual function of breasts.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"avery" wrote in message
...

"Phyl" wrote in message
nk.net...
doomella wrote:

I think the problem here is not that it's outrageous to "sexualize" a
breast if it's feeding an infant but the idea that anything even
remotely sensual is somehow amoral and indecent. Of course a breast is
"sexualized" -- it's a female sex organ.

It's a sex "organ"?

'Splain it to me.

Like I haven't been a typing fool on this topic already. What's to
'splain?
I did a quick Google search and if you scroll down you'll find 'em in the
list of female reproductive organs. http://www.healthac.org/index.html
Besides, breasts are organs and they do play a role in sex, so it's
really not a stretch to call them "sex organs". (If they weren't, men
probably wouldn't gape at them , teenagers in California wouldn't be
getting Double D's as graduation gifts and Hooter's would be out of
business. There aren't similar tacky chains for blondes or women with
enormous thumbs or enormous calves.) I guess they're generally
considered "secondary" sexual organs...or characteristics...
A matter of opinion. I wouldn't have described them as "sex organs", as
they are not part of the reproductive system. OTOH they are undoubtely
part of what a woman uses to attract male attention so I suppose viewed
like that you could, just about, get away with using that term (though I
still wouldn't).

Here they are again, listed as female reproduction organs:
http://www.cancerindex.org/medterm/medtm14.htm.
They also play a part in reproduction because they nourish the baby, so
they're part of the cycle. As for breasts being "what a woman uses to
attract male attention", that kind of implies that they're merely an
accessory for seduction as opposed to glands that play a rather major role
in the whole hetero sex dynamic (and the sex act itself!). Glands. That's
hot!

"avery" wrote in message
...


Here they are again, listed as female reproduction organs:
http://www.cancerindex.org/medterm/medtm14.htm.
They also play a part in reproduction because they nourish the baby, so
they're part of the cycle. As for breasts being "what a woman uses to
attract male attention", that kind of implies that they're merely an
accessory for seduction as opposed to glands that play a rather major role
in the whole hetero sex dynamic (and the sex act itself!). Glands. That's
hot!

As I said, it's a matter of opinion. Clearly you agree with the opinion of
whoever compiled that list, I don't. There's no disagreement about fact
here, just semantics. In any case as I said in my last post it's irrelevant
to the point of the thread anyway.

David.

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"avery" wrote in message
...


Here they are again, listed as female reproduction organs:
http://www.cancerindex.org/medterm/medtm14.htm.
They also play a part in reproduction because they nourish the baby, so
they're part of the cycle. As for breasts being "what a woman uses to
attract male attention", that kind of implies that they're merely an
accessory for seduction as opposed to glands that play a rather major
role in the whole hetero sex dynamic (and the sex act itself!). Glands.
That's hot!

As I said, it's a matter of opinion. Clearly you agree with the opinion of
whoever compiled that list, I don't. There's no disagreement about fact
here, just semantics. In any case as I said in my last post it's
irrelevant to the point of the thread anyway.

Yeah, it is pretty irrelevant..... not sure why I wrote a series of theses
(semi-rhyme unintentional - ech) about this.
I know that I don't want to type the word "breast" for the next 6 months.

David Looser wrote:

"Jules W." wrote in message
ups.com...

Personally, I'm a fan of the boobies but it squicks me a lot when I see
a woman on a mall bench breastfeeding. Go figure. Maybe because it
seems as if it should be private, like a woman doing some kind of
period-related thing. I just don't wanna see it in a public setting.

A circular argument. You don't want to see women breastfeeding in public
"because it's something that should be done in private". Why should it be
done in private?, because people like you object to it being done in public.
I notice that you haven't actually given us a reason for your objection
beyond your own irrational squeamishness.

David.
--------------------
Most of this societal **** is this way, people are brainwashed to
enforce it by being shamed about it so that they are made uncomfortable
to see and often just to hear about it. it's not about sex, it's about
you being stupid enough to have your objects of totally irrational
embarrassment dictated by your culture simply by the example of others.

Most people need to be taken and forcibly deprogrammed:
First nude in a group, then group fondling, then group sex, then
sex with their kids, then sex with their parents. Do that for a
month or so and they'll laugh at people who think sex is "dirty".
Steve