Mad Money's Personal Spin

Main | Albums | Admin

« | »

Whip `Em Out, Girls!

spingirl | 28 July, 2006 13:52

The female breast. Some humans find them attractive, some find them disgusting, and others find them to be a massive turn-on. Whatever your opinion on them, it's fair to say that the primary purpose for the female breast is to produce milk in order to feed the human young. Humans don't regurgitate already digested food for their wee ones, like birds or other animals; human females feed their babies by breastfeeding, preferably, though machine produced formula is also an option. In order to breastfeed, the female has to present the breast to the baby and allow the baby to latch on and suck. This is how it has been done since the beginning of mankind, and it doesn't look like it is going to change any time soon.

So why do so many people have a problem with women breastfeeding in public?


The recent cover of Babytalk magazine features a baby breastfeeding. No nipple is shown, nothing risque is implied, it's just a cute baby and the side of a breast. And yet the letters that the magazine has received from readers make it sound like the second-coming of Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction.

According to an article posted on CNN (which includes a shot of the cover), reader comments ranged from "Gross" to "I immediately turned the cover face down." Mind you, this free magazine is targeted to PARENTS - yeah, the ones who should be breastfeeding , or at least mature enough to realize the breasts are used for more than just enticing men (or other women, as the case may be). And the picture could never be mistaken for porn - hell, I see more risque things in the lingerie section of the Sunday Wal-Mart circular. And yet there is immense outrage that someone would dare to show a baby breastfeeding, because God forbid an impressionable child might see it.

My question is, isn't the idea of the female breast as beautiful, nurturing thing the type of impression you would want your children to have, rather than seeing it as a completely sexual plaything that has amazing, almost magical powers over men and therefore should be hidden away from public view?

These are probably the same people who push breastfeeding as the only way to feed your child, on the one hand, but in the next breath say you should only do it while hidden away in private, because heaven knows what the sight of a mostly naked breast with a BABY ATTACHED might do to the delicate sensitivities of males, both young and old. I mean, wouldn't it just be terrible if they realized that the female breast has a greater purpose than to provide them with hours of motorboating fun? Gahh.

Yes, males are visual creatures. But do we think that they are so controlled by their sexual instincts that they would start humping the sides of buildings if they happened to catch a glimpse of a woman breastfeeding her child in public? Are they going to rip off their clothes and start harrassing any female who happens to walk by? Don't guys deserve a little more credit than that?

This whole debate just sickens me. I'll admit, I do a doubletake when I see a woman breastfeeding in public - it's just not that common a sight. But it's not a horrific or disgusting sight, to be sure. You can't even compare it to the sight of dead or maimed bodies on the evening news - and few people bat an eye at that anymore. On the contrary, the sight of a woman breastfeeding her child could even remind us about the beauty of life and nurturing each other. Maybe the people who think that a magazine cover with a breastfeeding baby on it is "gross" should doublecheck what is really gross out there in the world. They might come to realize their closeminded Puritanism is what's really "gross."

Random Musings :: Comment (0) :: Permalink :: Trackbacks (0)

Add comment

Topic

Text


Your name

Your email address (if any)

Your personal page (if any)



Valid XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS.
Free Blog Hosting