How do you feel about this magazine cover regarding breastfeeding?

Question

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14065706/

Personally, I'm uncomfortable with this particular cover shot. I realize breastfeeding is a whole-natural thing and that breasts aren't *just* a "sex thing". It seems a little pushy and over the top, though to just put it in your face like this...how many mom's who can't breastfeed are going to feel additional pain or guilt when they see this? How many who chose not to breastfeed are going to feel that much more like they're being chastized for not doing so?

This pic alone reminds me of being in Red Lobster a few years ago trying to eat Clam Chowder soup when a lady at the table next to us just whipped out her breast and fed her child right there for all to see...no cover, no nothing. Not very appetizing.

For me, I think breast-feeding is something that should be kept personal between the mother and child (Daddy's okay, too!) and should be done discreatly (spell check?) in public.

For the record, I was unable to breastfeed my own children for medical reasons. I'm not ashamed of it, don't feel bad for them (or me) over it. It's just how it was, they turned out fine on formula, and we're great.

This has no bearing whatsoever, however, on my feelings about breast feeding in public or this magazine cover. Even before I had children these were my views and, had I breastfed, I would have conducted myself accordingly.

Answer 1

I prefer things to be a little more discreet a little more classy . But sadly, our whole society is going down the trashy route and calling it liberation. There are lots of things that are natural , for example giving birth is natural but that doesn't mean we want to have a huge billboard showing it. When one expresses displeasure, the media, particularly advertisers, make you feel unenlightened and backward. I resent that. Magazines have to recognize that there are people of many nationalities and ethnic origins. They all have a different upbringing. By their 'in your face' attitude, they can turn people off. Personally I don't think the magazine is showing women any respect. They're appealing to the prurient interests of certain segments of the population. If they really respected women, they would be dealing with the issue intellectually not shoving a breast in a baby's face for all to see and ogle and calling it liberation. The funny thing is that it's usually female editors who push this type of thing. Don't they realize they're making all women into sex objects?

Answer 2

I had this particular issue delivered to my home. I thought nothing of it but my son who is 22 had to pick it up and go wow! My daughter who is 18 did the same thing. I asked them what was indecent about the photo and what could they actually see? You cannot see the nipple just the shape of the breast. There is nothing nasty about a woman's breast feeding a child. They were created for feeding children by God. This photo was done very tastefully and it was a parenting magazine not the enquirer. I breast fed in public with a blanket over me. You wouldn't even know I was breast feeding my child and no way in the world was I going to go into the restroom and sit on a nasty toilet stall and feed my child just to appease the squeemish. Breast feeding is natural and isn't something the mother need be made feel like it is a nasty thing.

Answer 3

I think it's awesome! Love the intense look on the baby's face; really captures some of the bonding that takes place during nursing. Bravo to BabyTalk for having the guts to print this cover! So sad that it would even be considered controversial in this day & age.

If I have to look at photos and mothers shoving fake plastic breasts (aka bottles and pacifiers) into their infant's faces w/o passing judgement or feeling uncomfortable, then why shouldn't the anti-breastfeeding zealots have to suck it up and deal with it?

If I said I think bottle feeding is something that should be kept personal and private between mother and child (and daddy's OK too) and it should only be done in public discreetly, you'd think I was out of my mind. The double standard is, quite frankly, disgusting.

For all the talk about morality, God, family values, etc. in this country it's high time we stop persecuting women for feeding children the way God (or nature if you aren't religious) intended for them to be fed. If you don't like it, don't look at it. Period.

Answer 4

how ridiculous. there is way more boob-age shown on covers of magazine with chicks in low-cut shirts, no one gets offended over that. While being more discreet is a good idea, so as not to offend small children or something, denying a hungry baby their nourishment just to appease some uptight person would be ridiculous. I breastfed my daughter for a year. Always in my own home, in another room, or at least covered. But seriously, no one is FORCING you to stare at another womans boobs while shes feeding her baby. There is far more skin being paraded around sickeningly in this country. Something as pure as a mother feeding her baby should not be put in the category of those nasty s kanks who dont wear enough clothes. Tell the teenagers to put some clothes on and stop worrying about the moms who are just doing what has been done since the begining of time. Dont like it? You have the freedom to look away

Answer 5

My dear, your sentiment is shared by maybe some single women out there or women who haven't tried breastfeeding. However, I think there's no big deal about it. Although I also dislike women just breastfeeding in full sight of everybody. I don't mean they should not because I also breastfeed in public. The difference is that, I always make sure I bring a baby blanket or anything to cover my breast. Believe it or not, my baby is now 16 months and she doesn't drink from a bottle eventhough some are telling me to make her get used to it. Why would I? Aside from the fact that breastfeed is the best, it also gives us more time to bond with each other. I remember my friend telling me, now that her son is all grown up and her relatives take him for a vacation, she feels secure because she knows her son will always come back to her. The smell of the mother will always linger in the mind and heart of the child. So my dear I understand if you're a bit upset but believe me, if you're a mother who has no qualms about breastfeeding, the cover is no big deal. In fact, I'm so proud of it because it means it is campaigning the need to breastfeed. So you see my dear, you have to see the other side of the story. Always be open to other people's perspective. The more you get embarrassed, the more people will criticize. Let them see that you're proud of mothers who breastfeed their babies (although with cover in public).

Answer 6

my god you Americans are prudes. we have images like that here (Australia) on all types of parenting magazines. And if mothers feel guilty in seeing this because they can't feed well that is their issue and they need to get counselling to get over their guilt. Does this mean babies shouldn't be shown bottle feeding because it may upset breastfeeding mothers? It is a magazine showing a mother feeding her child, what is wrong with that? As for a mother feeding her child in a restaurant, do you cover your self up to feed? Yes the lady could have been more descreet but just try NOT LOOKING.
I am fed up with women in here making breastfeeding mothers feel bad for being able to do what nature intended. If a woman can't breastfeed...who cares thats why bottles were invented. Formula babies turn out fine too. You do what is best for you and your baby. For some it's bottles some it's breast. If a mother feels so guilty that your censorship on magazines is granted, then it's time for women to seek help if that type of picture is going to offend them. Can't breastfeed...GET OVER IT... and don't expect the world to change to suit you.

Answer 7

I don't see this cover as a big deal.
Women who choose not to breastfeed have made their choice and they are aware that some may criticize them, I however don't see how this is a criticism.
Women who can't breast feed come across other things that may remind them of the fact, I doubt that they cry every time they do.
While I think it's somewhat rude to pull out your breast and feed your baby in the middle of the restaurant, no matter how natural it is I don't see anything wrong with this cover.
Of course you can never please everybody.

Answer 8

I think people are reading to much into the cover. The main story was breastfeeding so they but a picture of it on the cover. I'm sure they didn't intend to agonize non-breastfeeding parents. If you chose not to breastfeed then you should be comfortable enough with your decision to not be offended by this picture.

I do agree that it should be kept private. The lady at Red Lobster should have at least covered up with SOMEthing at least. But i really don't think the cover is trying to be so "in your face" about breastfeeding. It's just a harmless picture of a mom breastfeeding

Answer 9

i really don't understand why some women are making such a fuss about such a simple cover....it is as simple as a baby seen naked . does'nt it make u feel warmer, more affectionate loving and caring and those who see this picture to be a sex symbol......i don't know what there brains r occupied with all the time.

anyways, abt publicly feeding the baby is not bad until and unless it is covered .....it is a babies right to be feeded with boobs then with the bottles . why does one think that god in the first place gave breasts at all to the women(not for sex but for babies to feel the love from the mother) .breast feeding brings babies closer to the mother and those mothers who feel ashamed for doing so should in the first place stop doing sex also .....these double standard women talk openly abt sex and feel ashamed in breastfeeding.....well done .

breastfeeding is nothing abt feeling ashamed until decent (covered).for those mothers who can't breastfeed maybe they may feel guilty or pain for their not being able to do so but otherwise there is nothing wrong with the cover.

Answer 10

OMG.....a magazine for MOTHERS that shows a BABY NURSING on a BREAST which is so natural and beautiful! WOW.....I'd NEVER expect to see a BREAST in a magazine about BABIES! Those things are for MEN and NOT babies! (Read: sarcasm!)

I think it's a BEAUTIFUL cover and it doesn't even really show that much.....after all the baby is latched on....it's not a nipple shot! I LOVE the way you can tell that the baby is looking into mom's eyes.

GET OVER YOURSELF. Breasts were designed to feed babies. It should be NORMAL to see a woman breastfeeding. If this shot was on the cover of a men's magazine, then it would be a little creepy. But on the cover of a PARENTING magazine, it's TOTALLY appropriate.

Answer 11

This must be the only country in the world that feels uncomfortable about babies doing something so simple as breastfeeding.

Ok, maybe mothers should attempt to cover a feeding child in public but how can any woman feel uncomfortable about a baby magazine next to a Cosmo with their usual"10 Ways to make DEEP ORGASMS BETTER!!!

sheesh, women!