(no subject)

[novapsyche]

Eyeful of breast-feeding mom sparks outrage: Magazine cover blasted by public squeamish over sight of nursing breast -- *blinks* Look at that picture. It's a great picture!

Comments

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

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

Umm, I hate to break it to ya, hon, but I doubt that either of them would see a breast and say, "Oh, shit, I didn't want to see that!" Unless it's a very nasty one, which the one on that cover wasn't. And, for fuck's sake, it's a magazine about babies, so if there's anywhere that IS appropriate to show a woman breastfeeding, that's the place!

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

It doesn't even show nip!

it is a great shot, from an artistic viewpoint-- the roundness of the breast and the roundness of the baby's cheek...

[xterminal.livejournal.com]

The complainers are oversheltered morons, and can safely be killed. I'd say "before they breed," but if they're reading that magazine, it looks like we have at least a few from the next generation already who will eventually have to die.

[chimalis.livejournal.com]

It doesn't even show anything! It's a great picture, too, showing emotion in the baby's eyes. Good GoD.

[dionysus1999.livejournal.com]

We obviously need more public nudity.

I second that

[magicmaiden.livejournal.com]

More public nudity...chuckles..

Yes, seems like violence is ok..but heavens...show some natural loving and oh my...lol.

They see more than that on cable tv and most shows at the movies.

Too wierd.

Re: I second that

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Yes, but you pay for cable or a movie--you have consented through your patronage that you want to see that content.

This mag is distributed free of charge and is available primarily in doctor's offices (which would seem to be a private venue to me, but I can see how some would construe that to be otherwise). Because the people "affected" by the photo did not approve of seeing it through patronage, I guess they can claim that they didn't consent to seeing it?

It's a stretch even for my logic, but that's the only way I can see people being outraged.

Re: I second that

[magicmaiden.livejournal.com]

ok...

Free tv has breasts too...ok?

So do nude beaches.

I think I would "get it" a lot better if the breast was showing nipples or full frontal or even the babies mouth in process, or something.

And I agree with your dr office consideration as well.