Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Warning, may be offensive to some.
Do you find this cover offensive? [9 vote(s)]

Yes
11.1%
No
88.9%


The Mediator

Status: Offline
Posts: 5356
Date:
Warning, may be offensive to some.




WASHINGTON (AFP) - Readers of a US parenting magazine are crying foul over the publication's latest cover depicting a woman breastfeeding, with some calling the photo offensive and disgusting.

"I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one woman from Kansas wrote in reaction to the picture in Babytalk, a free magazine that caters to young mothers. "I was offended and it made my husband very uncomfortable when I left the magazine on the coffee table."

Her reaction was part of some 5,000 letters the magazine has received in response to a poll to gage reader sentiment about Babytalk's August cover photo, which shows a baby nursing.

Several readers said they were "embarrassed" or "offended" by the Babytalk photo and one woman from Nevada said she "immediately turned the magazine face down" when she saw the photo.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," the mother of a four-month-old said.

Another reader said she was "horrified" when she received the magazine and hoped that her husband hadn't laid eyes on it.

"I had to rip off the cover since I didn't want it laying around the house," she said.

A national television program also ran a segment on the controversy, interviewing several people in New York who expressed disgust over the cover photo.

The picture in Babytalk was aimed at illustrating the controversy surrounding breastfeeding in the United States, where a national survey by the American Dietetic Association found that 57 percent of those polled are opposed to women breastfeeding in public and 72 percent think it is inappropriate to show a woman breastfeeding on television programs.

Babytalk executive editor Lisa Moran said though most of those who responded to the poll about the cover photo gave the magazine a thumbs up, she was surprised that some 25 percent expressed outrage.

"There is a real puritanical streak in America," Moran told AFP. "You see celebrities practically baring their breasts all the time and no one seems to mind in this sort of sexual context.

"But in this very natural context of feeding your child, a lot of Americans are very uncomfortable with it."

She said the controversy is all the more surprising in light of concerted efforts by the US government and health professionals to encourage women to breastfeed.

"Everyone is saying that breastfeeding is best for baby but there is so little support for it in public," Moran said.

She said the Babytalk cover photo marks the first time a major parenting magazine in the United States dares to break the taboo about showing a woman's breast and the outrage it has prompted is not about to discourage editors from doing it again.

"This hasn't scared us off at all," Moran said. "We're thrilled and hopefully this will help women get more support for nursing."

__________________


The Mediator

Status: Offline
Posts: 5356
Date:

I think women should have some modesty when it comes to breastfeeding in public. In my experience, many of the ones who don't usually are trying to make a statement or are just the type of girl to bare it in public anyway.

But this cover shows nothing. I think it was done very tastefully and depicted the subject manner well. I don't see anything obscene about it.

__________________


The Good Witch Of The South

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 19309
Date:

Not a bit- the cover shows nothing. I have said before- I breast fed both of mine for a year- probably maybe twice in public with both (restaurant) but I was 100% covered as was the baby. I would never expose myself. That picture exposes the mom, but for a magazine cover it is fine.

__________________
This_egg_hatches_on_04/05/06!_Adopt_one_today_from_pickle-green.com/egraphics!


Cuff 'Em N' Stuff 'Em

Status: Offline
Posts: 7442
Date:

It's on the cover of a BABY magazine...what is offensive about it?  That is what babies do.....


If it were on the cover of Cosmo or Maxim magazine then it would inappropriate.....  I'm with the reader in the article, just tear off the front page if it offends you.....  I bet she went ahead and read the article on breast feeding though.......   people worry about such crazy things.



-- Edited by darleneapd at 08:28, 2006-08-04

__________________

Toys, toys, toys, in the attic!

Zim


Chairwoman Of The Board

Status: Offline
Posts: 758
Date:

I really thought it would be difficult to modestly breastfeed in public, but it was easy with the simple draping of a light cloth over the area. I think it's pathetic how people get so riled up about something so unoffensive. I mean, really, there is much worse out there - nobody blinked at Jennifer Anniston naked on the cover of a magazine... or the Dixie Chicks. And IMHO it just goes further to promote the body as something 'bad' and 'forbidden' which is probably why America has more sexual deviants than the norm. Nobody would blink at a cow on the cover of a mag - heck that new movie opening today has the cow gyrating with full udder exposure, and we're getting mad at this???

__________________


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

I think all the best points have already been made.

1) It's a natural thing, and nature is very rarely offensive.

2) You really see NOTHING.

3) It's a frickin' baby magazine! If it were Britney Spears on the cover of Entertainment Weekly I might wonder "why that shot" and what it has to do with entertainment.

With all the crap we have to see and hear in this country today I can't believe someone could be offended by that!

__________________


Phat Cat EL Presidente

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 12975
Date:

I am not offended by this at all, what offends me are the women sitting in the mall not covering themselves up at all and when they are done they just pull the kid off and then worry about putting it back in the bra. I saw this one time and just for my amusement I sat down to watch peoples reaction to it.


The married couples just kind of walked by and shook their heads, the alone guys were what was creepy. They just kind of stopped and stared for a moment or two.


For the most part it has that shock factor like a car wreck does, you want to look because your curious but you don't want to stare at it forever.



__________________
Sometimes, when i'm lonely... i crawl into a laundry basket and tickle my ears. But, Some times I don't...


Cat Scratch Diva

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 10068
Date:

LOL, I am slightly offended that it is on a magazine cover, how is that child going to feel about it in 15 years? I agree it is natural and it's the best for the child. However the world should not have to see some random "ladies". I had a customer seriously sit in my retail sales floor with her baby propped on my desk and fed him. I had about 10 other customers that were offended and left. Cover it up is all I ask.

__________________
1150915680215674az.gif


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

Well, sometimes you do have to wonder if they couldn't have just planned their day a LITTLE better so they could be somewhere private to do that.


__________________


Doesn't Do Windows



Status: Offline
Posts: 25589
Date:


Personally, if I was walking through a checkout and saw that magazine, at first glance my initial reaction would not be "awe . . . . look at the sweet little baby getting his much needed nurishment . . . oh, how beautiful". No, my first thought would be "Whoa! a bare breast!". I'm sorry, but I'm a man and if all us guys are all honest with you, I think most of us would admit to the same initial reaction. Its the way we're wired.

So, the thing I have to wonder is, why put a bare breast on the cover of the magazine? Does it make the breast feeding article any better? Does it provide any more information about the subject? No, it is about attracting attention. You will not be able to convince me that the decision of what picture to place on the cover is not more about getting attention than anything else.

Hopefully the attention they were seeking is that of the new mother that would glance at that and think "Oh, that one's about breast feeding, I need to read that." I suspect that many of the people that are upset are questioning their intention of placing the exposed breast on the cover.

My point? Personally, no, I'm not offended by that. I like breasts as much as the next guy. But, I believe they placed the bare breast on the cover to get attention to the magazine. Whenever you start seeking attention, you will get it, but It may not be all positive.





__________________




2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

I'm sure they did it for attention.

I think in the magazine business the whole idea is to cause a stir. I never heard of Baby Talk magazine, but for the next week they're gonna get tons of free advertising via the news stories and the articles that will be written about them.

I bet this is the best selling issue of Baby Talk in their history.

It's funny you said what you did though Web, because I had the EXACT same thought about why was the photo necessary in relation to the story? Wouldn't that photo have been just fine as a 3x5 image next to the actual article on the inside of the magazine?

Nope, let's get people talking. Let's sell some magazines!

__________________


Grand Poobah

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 36897
Date:

how in any way shape or form would anyone find that cover offensive???


Personally, I believe, cover up in public. For people into that sort of thing, you can just walk through walmart. there's no covering up in there. Its funny to see a couple of babies each suckling a big tattoed   .



__________________
"And like Web, I enjoy throwing JR under the bus.  Problem is, it's usually under the special bus that I ride every day". Ghostdancer 12-18-09


Phat Cat EL Presidente

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 12975
Date:

Yeah! Or they have a bag in one hand and a baby in the other and they ask you to take it out for them.

__________________
Sometimes, when i'm lonely... i crawl into a laundry basket and tickle my ears. But, Some times I don't...


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

JD,

I tend to think like I were a parent, I always have, I don't know why. But I guess my ONLY point of concern with the cover would be if I were at a food store with my young child and they spotted the cover right there next to the candy bars.

It would lead to questions right there in the checkout line and as a parent that's not where I'd want to have that conversation.

Having said that, I'm not saying it's wrong or that it shouldn't be allowed to be sold. Again, it shows almost nothing really. But I CAN see why some people would be offended to a degree. It shouldn't be a cause of boycotts or any other over-reaction like that.

__________________


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

Sparky wrote:

Yeah! Or they have a bag in one hand and a baby in the other and they ask you to take it out for them.



You've had that HAPPEN!?!??!!

__________________


Cat Scratch Diva

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 10068
Date:

Jeremy Riggs wrote:


I'm sure they did it for attention. I think in the magazine business the whole idea is to cause a stir. I never heard of Baby Talk magazine, but for the next week they're gonna get tons of free advertising via the news stories and the articles that will be written about them. I bet this is the best selling issue of Baby Talk in their history. It's funny you said what you did though Web, because I had the EXACT same thought about why was the photo necessary in relation to the story? Wouldn't that photo have been just fine as a 3x5 image next to the actual article on the inside of the magazine? Nope, let's get people talking. Let's sell some magazines!


You know whats funny about it? They are free magazines sent to every new mother in the country. They only sell adds to thier customers. They are really big into breast feeding, their entire magazine is usually 3/4 something to do with it. I did not breast feed and I felt guilty because of all the articles I read saying my kids wasn't going to be smart ect...You know what, she is smart actually ahead of most of her age group as far as things she can say and do. I don't regret my decision one bit. I am more offended by the magazine in a nutshell, than the cover.  

__________________
1150915680215674az.gif


The Mediator

Status: Offline
Posts: 5356
Date:

Obviously I'm not male. Before I read the article, I didn't even notice the breast at all! I thought, "Yep, baby on the cover of a baby magazine." But that's the point, isn't it? Don't they need something relevant other than a cute baby on the cover month after month? But of course it's for attention, they do have to sell the magazine somehow, that's what the cover is for.

__________________


The Mediator

Status: Offline
Posts: 5356
Date:

And I'd have no problem having a discussion about breast feeding with my child. I'd rather have the discussion as a reaction to that cover than as a reaction to a woman breastfeeding in public with it all hanging out.

__________________


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

I hear you Molly. I'm just saying some parents are protective of their rights to have the discussion on their time table, not thrust upon them by surprise in a super-market.

One parent may feel it's not appropriate to have the conversation until a later age, another might feel they should have it sooner. No one wants to have it in a line full of people because the kid is yelling "Mommy! Her boobies hanging out! Why is her booby hanging out! Why is that baby biting her booby!"



__________________


Grand Poobah

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 36897
Date:

I'd be more worried about the people in line than a magazine cover....

__________________
"And like Web, I enjoy throwing JR under the bus.  Problem is, it's usually under the special bus that I ride every day". Ghostdancer 12-18-09


Phat Cat EL Presidente

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 12975
Date:

Jeremy Riggs wrote:



Sparky wrote:


Yeah! Or they have a bag in one hand and a baby in the other and they ask you to take it out for them.



You've had that HAPPEN!?!??!!




No, but see my point! You were shocked weren't you? It's the shock factor I tell you.



__________________
Sometimes, when i'm lonely... i crawl into a laundry basket and tickle my ears. But, Some times I don't...


2011 Super Bowl Champions!

Status: Offline
Posts: 29950
Date:

Well, like I said, I'm surprised it caused an uproar.

I could swear I've seen practically that same cover before in the checkout line. It wouldn't have even phased me if not for the article about the reaction.

__________________


The Mediator

Status: Offline
Posts: 5356
Date:

Yes, I think that cover is a lot better than some. Say this one for example:


__________________


Cat Scratch Diva

    



Status: Offline
Posts: 10068
Date:

this is the front door poster in my store right now, I have had little kids stop and giggle.


Lenscrafters



__________________
1150915680215674az.gif


CEO - The KOTO Co.

Status: Offline
Posts: 3800
Date:

 


        I'm in shock !!  A thread with some substance !  ( a   poll , view points etc. )


       Frankly I think it's one of the best covers I've seen in quite a while. Anyone offended by something so natural probly gets offended when they stand in front of a mirror.


 A baby at a womens breast , ya that ranks right up there with the Sports Illustrated slut suit edition.



__________________
dave
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard