Breast-feeding cover upsets magazine readers
Jul. 28, 2006 12:00 AM
NEW YORK - "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 parenting magazine. It's yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight, even as breast-feeding itself gains more support from the government and medical community.
The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half, or 43 percent, of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public.
So that's how screwed up we are, huh? A photograph of a breastfeeding infant, with no nipple visible, mother discreetly turned in profile, and some people are responding as though it were a full-frontal shot of Uma Thurman nude in a shower.
Of course, I wouldn't be offended if that were the cover of a magazine either, but that's a subject for another time. Or maybe not. Because it speaks to something. As most of you guys and gals who read this blog on any kind of regular basis will know, I can put a double entendre spin on just about anything.
But-I'm gonna go out on a limb here-there is nothing sexual about the above photograph. Unless we're so afraid of the reality of our bodies that a baby's breakfast becomes pornography. Which we really shouldn't be.
But apparently, we are. Because IIRC, that figure for how many people think women should be allowed to breast-feed in public is actually lower that that for how many think gays and lesbians should be able to be legally married.
That's how screwed up we are about sex.
We're not just homophobic, we're heterophobic.