BabyTalk Magazine Cover Controversy

Okay, this settles it - women really are each other's own worst enemies. It seems that BabyTalk magazine featured, on its August cover, a photo of a breastfeeding infant. All you can see is the smiling baby's face and the sideview of a boob. It's tissue, people, and less titillating (pardon the pun) than the amount of t&a you see on your average beach. For now, you can see the "offending" cover on the magazine's homepage. Go look. Then come back.

Done? Wondering what the big deal is? According to this article, "the magazine has received more than 700 letters — more than for any article in years." Also, "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."

Among the gems of comments the magazine received, according to the piece (keep in mind this was a special issue on breastfeeding, in a magazine for new mothers):

"I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine"

"I immediately turned the magazine face down"

"Gross"

"'I shredded it,' said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. 'A breast is a breast — it's a sexual thing. He [her 13-year old son] didn't need to see that.'"

"I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

"'Men are very visual. When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast — regardless of what it's being used for."

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

Lessons learned:

Don't you dare be gross!

Men's reactions and desires are the arbiters of what women should do, even if it concerns feeding a baby.

13-year-old boys and grown men cannot possibly be expected to control themselves.

Men should only see boobs they want to see!

Mothers cannot possibly be expected to explain that boobs are not just for fondling.

If you have to choose between giving your baby the best possible nutrition, and writing angry letters to a magazine, you should totally go with the letters. For serious.

From the magazine's editor:
"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.'"

Puritanical women of America, you have to get a grip. Now. Breasts are for feeding babies. Even yours.

If you support BabyTalk's cover choice, you may email them at letters@babytalk.com.

Updates:

Commenter Rob has a good take on the controversy as well.

The MSNBC website also has the story. They have an associated discussion board, "Breast-feeding in public - human nature or indecent exposure?" Unfortunately, I can't access it at the moment because it doesn't work in Safari, and I don't feel like updating Explorer.

Lindsey at Theology&Geometry is also on the case. Says Lindsey, "Because, um, you should really get a frigging life if your time spent on Batsh*t Boob Patrol means that some exhausted nursing mother, carrying around a diaper bag and stroller and a fragile little mound of soul and some pretty heavy emotional weight, has to shuffle her way into a damp stinky restroom to feed her baby just so you don't have to think about your dirty boys having naughty thoughts about boobies that aren't yours." Woman doesn't mince words; go read the rest.

The Lactivist manages to respond without using the word "titillating," which neither Lindsey nor I could resist.

The Spakespeare's Sister blog got a good discussion going in the comments.

Technorati Tags: Babytalk; breastfeeding
MeSH Tags: Breast Feeding