Funny, I just took my wife to the doctor’s yesterday and saw that very cover. Didn’t bother me in the least, but I thought, " I bet that magazine is going to take some flak for that cover…"
Any man who can’t cope with the fact that women breastfeed needs a whack to the balls with a steel bat. Then they’ll have something else to feel uncomfortable about for awhile.
Okay, that’s one more on my list of things to do before I die. Or do you think it’s too similar to “#147: Have sex while wearing a spacesuit”?
Trust me, you don’t want to have sex in a biohazard suit. They’re all stiff and crinkly and when the faceplate steams up you can’t see anything, and after awhile the papertowels you have taped to your hardhat get too soggy to wipe the faceplate anymore.
And then there’s the issue of what to do with the air hose and emergency escape oxygen bottle. The rubber steeltoed boots could cause some problems too.
Wow, utterly pathetic, but sadly, not very surprising.
Had I been the editor of the magazine, I would have had to suppress a strong urge to respond:
"Dear concerned reader.
Thanks so much for your letter regarding the cover photograph of our recent issue; let me first say that I deeply regret that you have become offended at what you thought was a baby suckling at a human breast.
Please, let me set your concern at rest and assure you that no such object as a naked breast is visible in the photograph; the curved area of skin visible at the left side of the cover is in fact a buttock, and the baby is performing analingus.
Kind Regards
The Editor"
A baby Giraffe maybe.
Mayhap just coming up for air.
Thank you - I know I’ve told it before, but it ranks up there as one of my funniest memories!
No, no, no… she slapped the magazine down on the coffee table, and when he saw it, she demanded “doesn’t it make you uncomfortable, seeing that?”
“Uh…yeah. Uncomfortable. That’s right. Very uncomfortable.” (adjusts pants)
Capi-chazo.
I have a big problem with that photo.
There’s a damned baby in the way.
That is one fine boob. Not a stretch mark on it.
When I first saw an article about the controversy surrounding that picture I was bewildered. My own first reaction to the picture was “How sweet!”
It’s truly amazing how prudish some people can be. I once read an article in a very conservative church’s national magazine, about the concept of Original Sin. Illustrating the article was one shot of the Sistine Chapel cieling, of God reaching out to the reclining Adam, and another old painting of Adam and Eve in Eden.
Next month a letter from a reader was included, in which she complained about seeing Adam and Eve “in the buff”. Huh? The Bible* itself* says they were naked! She also didn’t recognize the Michelangelo painting, because she interpreted it as homosexual eroticism, “one man reaching out longingly for another!”
As if there’s not ENOUGH other things going on about which to be outraged.
So…exactly where is this hotel, again…?
I think that all of these offended people should be forced to watch this horrifyingly offensive video!