Breasts = Evil

Remove all ads!

"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 greater support from the government and medical community.

"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."

http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/5325/mnbreastcover121ez2.jpg

It's quite old but i heard that they got sued today

[ August 17, 2006, 23:55: Message edited by: Stardust ]

 

It's true Stardust, I saw the article on the news over a month ago. It's really pathetic when you think about it, and I really think it's only Americans who get riled up like this. Yes, it shows the profile of the breast, but you don't even see any of the nipple. Moreover, this wasn't a picture that was meant to be sexually provocative in any way. It's a mother nursing. I imagine that thousands of women nurse every day in the U.S., and it shocks me that some people treat this like the second coming of Nipplegate like we had at the Super Bowl a couple of years back. Needless to say, I myself can't see what the uproar is all about, and I fail to see what is sexual about a woman breast feeding.

 

It's quite fun really the US is really the hhomeland of double standard, they produce by far most porn in the eintire world (more than the eintire EU actually). But still they can't show two year olds naked on a beach.

Itäs both funny and scary, but hey many americans think that we are phedophiles

 

I clicked on the link and to me it seemed like a very nice breast.

As to people being offended, they probably need to get a life.

 

WTF? There's not even a nipple there and it's a parenting magazine, for decency's sake! There is plenty of full nude photographs in healthcare or beauty magazines here and no one gives a damn despite this being a Catholic country with over 90% citizens being baptised Catholics and some other couple percent other Christians. You could probably even see some women actually breast-feeding outdoors, let alone around family. It's not a sexual thing.

If it were porn, free speech would cover it, but if it's a parenting magazine, then no? That cover is more decent than what the average horny college girl wears and, mind you, this is before she starts moving or talking.

 

Yeah, I saw this a while back when Steven Colbert lampooned it on his show.

For my part, it's just a lump of flesh. There's no distinguishing characteristics (aside from the baby, perhaps) that indicate whether it's a breast, an ass cheek, or just an exceptionally large jowl. It's people adding meaning to this that is the problem. You see something dirty because you're thinking dirty, and it's just that simple. These people should get their minds out of the gutter.

 

Or their heads out of their arses. Either way it's the loud minority yelling and screaming "indecency" and the rest of us just let the baby have its bottle (or in this case DON'T let the baby have its breast) to shut them up.

 

Indeed I but this gives a picture of americans as stupid wankers which most are not, sad really.

 

Breasts = awesome.

 

Breasts are the ****

 

Look at the magazine's cover article: Why Women Don't Nurse More. Seeing the reaction it gets for showing a nursing baby, people really wonder?

 

Hey! Could some moderator please delete the link to that picture? I bet that is a naked baby!

Some people are so prudish, I wonder when they learned that was a breast or if they will ever get kids themselves.

 

Actually, I'm happy to see the reaction. Because then maybe this will encourage all those nutcases to stop reproducing.

 

Doubt it, Splunge because I have a theory they don't know where babies come from and just react to their hormones.

 

"I put what in where? Ewwww!"

 

Everyone knows babies come from a large, long-legged, wading bird who conviently drops the bundle down your brick chimney.

 

Bah, here in Hialeah (next to Miami) I've seen that several times out in the public, usually in a store. Nothing wrong with that, in the family I used to see it all the time!

 

What's the first thing you think of when you think of the superbowl in 2005?

Probably Janet Jackson's boob exposed.

Forget the rest of the halftime show, her boobie was showing...

Sure, it's a picture of a mother breastfeeding, which is in the mandate of the magazine, but everyone sees the breast and reacts to that, perhaps drawing attention away from the articles...

 

In a way. Here's the way I see it : The two of them want to fill their empty and meaningless lives. Since their last dog died of boredom and lack of attention, they figure they'll have a baby and save their marriage as well. They get piss drunk and nine months later, a baby comes out of the mother's stomach. See, easy, painless (err, for the father at least), and they don't have to deal with the nasty memories of having touched one another.. yuuuck...

On a side (but tieing into the sex thing) note, I'm quite sad this is post 70 for me. I wore my 69th post as a badge of honor..

 

I see that more as more of a commentary on the game. Now if the Packers had been playing, it might have been interesting enough to remember, celebrity boob or not.