Just how uptight does one have to be to be offeneded by something like this?
Where do they find such prudes that would make a statement like “Another reader said she was “horrified” when she received the magazine and hoped that her husband hadn’t laid eyes on it.” My god! Heaven forbid her husband see a side view of a breast. He may just go crazy and turn into a porn addict. That’s how it starts you know.
“I was offended and it made my husband very uncomfortable when I left the magazine on the coffee table.” What kind of ninny husband would actually say- honey, that picture just really makes me uncomfortable. I’m calling my mother.
The picture is so unrevealing it could even be an elbow for all we know.
That cover photo is so cute! How can anyone be offended by it? And are there really husbands who are uncomfortable at the sight of a breast not belonging to their wife?
(But it does look like a breast, and not an elbow)
I bet she has sex in a full biohazard suit, with a hole cut in the crotch.
I also think it’s a cute cover. Not surprised by the outrage though. Everyone knows that God meant for you to cover your sin mounds at all times and not to breastfeed, for then the evil sap of Eve will flow into your progeny and make them gay.
Count me in with the “WTF?” crowd. How can this be even close to offensive? I’ll bet Mr. Uncomfortable isn’t so damned ill at ease on the beach when women walk around with FAR more boob exposed than that magazine showed. I’M offended that someone would get all “horrified” at seeing a breast doing what a breast was partially made for–the nurturing of a baby.
While I don’t believe that displays of sex (I do NOT refer to kissing or holding hands, etc, OK?) should be public, this is nothing sexual at all. And yes, I do think that public breastfeeding should be discreet (not hidden in shame, just discreet, I did it all the time)–but this is a magazine about the care of babies, people! Cosmo shows more breast than that all the time! There’s nothing wrong with the Babytalk cover photo.
Some people just need to relax their cracks, and get over it.
Gerber Nuk pacifiers used to have a drawing of a baby sucking on a breast next to a picture of a baby sucking on the pacifier to show how the pacifier was designed to be similar to a mother’s breast. That picture isn’t on the package anymore, maybe because people complained.
As for the magazine cover, you can’t really see the nipple. If you didn’t know any better, the baby could be sucking on a giant ball or something (the kind you play with, not a testicle- although that would make an interesting cover). I think it’s cute too- especially the expression on the baby’s face.
There’s an older article out there about this with some woman who’s horrified, absolutely horrified that her husband and 13-year-old son might see a boob they didn’t want to see!
:dubious: :rolleyes:
And I’m sure her husband reads Playboy for the articles, too.
It’s stupid. You can see the SIDE of a breast in the article. No nipple. If it makes you that uncomfortable to see the side of a breast when a baby is eating, I’d say that you have the problem, not the magazine.
I thought this was so bizarre. I get Babytalk magazine, and it never occurred to me that there was anything offensive about that cover. It’s a magazine about taking care of babies.
