People all over the country are in an uproar over this magazine cover for Babytalk magazine. And my first question is why?Here's an excerpt from an article I saw on AOL:
"Babytalk is a free magazine whose readership is overwhelmingly mothers of babies. Yet 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.
One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it.
"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."
Gayle Ash is obviously a really uptight and possibly sexually frustrated woman. If her 13-year son old can't handle seeing a breast (sans nipple and arreola, for that matter) the poor kid is in trouble. I've seen more sexually explicit stuff in Sports Illustrated (swimsuit issue) and National Geographic (usually photos of naked African women, ex.: The Ubangi Tribe)
What is offensive about a woman breast feeding her beautiful child? I used to get offended when I saw women out in public breast feeding, but eventually I got over it. Hey, it's nature. I don't see how this photo can be interpreted as obscene in any way. If you ask me, the people that were quoted saying they were upset about this cover are milking the whole thing for publicity. It doesn't offend me and I'm lactose intolerant! I'm certain there will be more controversy over this issue, so I'll be sure to keep you abreast.
No comments:
Post a Comment