There is no secret that I am pro-Breastfeeding. So when I saw the cover of my free BabyTalk Magazine a couple of weeks ago I did not give it a second thought. I just figured that hmm... maybe a picture of a nursing baby on the cover of a magazine about all things Baby was commonplace. Well, obviously I was wrong.
It turns out pictures like these are "gross" and should be "shredded!" Wow, and to think I have posted pictures of Lucas nursing on here before. How sick am I? Never mind that I've seen more skin showing on almost every cover of the magazines on the news stand today then in the picture of the baby happily nursing. Shame on me and on Babytalk for forgetting the breasts are only for Ogling!
*********************************
Lactating Mothers of the Apocalypse
This much we know:
Who, pray who, will feed --er, save the children?!
Boobs are terrifying. Boobs are scary. Most people -- especially impressionable boys and men -- cannot see a woman's boob without falling into spasms of drooling regressive caveman frat-boy lust, belching the alphabet, the uncontrollable humping of furniture. It does not matter if said boob belongs to Tera Patrick or Jenna Jameson or a sweet lactating mother breastfeeding her baby -- boobs are, quite simply, pure, beguiling evil. It's true.
Here is proof. Here is proof that has nothing to do with Janet Jackson. It is the cover of some sweet and harmless and saccharine mothering magazine you've never heard of called BabyTalk, part of, apparently, Parenting.com. It is, apparently, a free magazine. It's available in, well, I don't know where. Supermarkets. Doctor's offices. Satan's foyer. It is not, in other words, in Good Vibrations. Nor is it anything like Hip Mama.
See that cover? Do you see the problem? Do you see why there has been a strangled, choking, gasping outcry of moral pain from a small but terribly ignorant segment of our pained world? Do you see why women from Texas are reportedly shredding the cover of this magazine so their teenage sons don't see it? Why some are outraged, writing nasty letters to the totally unsuspecting BabyTalk editor and complaining that this is exactly the type of imagery that's ruining the nation and sending us on a rocket ride to hell? Of course you do.
See? Evil evil evil!
Just look. It's a breast. Exposed. Sure there's no visible nipple, but the nipple is definitely implied and just look at the expression on that baby's face! Pure joy. Wonder. Bliss, even. It's just wrong. How dare they show this! Have they no shame? Women are vile creatures full of sex and supple skin and eternal temptation! Hey, just ask the Taliban. Or PBS.
So you can understand. You can understand why the uptight and the easily perturbed and the desperately sexless are horrified. Because it's not just a mother feeding her baby. It's a breast. In full (well, partial) public view. Men will see it and go crazy with lust. Teenage boys will see it and have convulsions. Very unpleasant parents who hate sex and hate their own bodies and hate just about everything having to do with sensual orgasmic life-giving energy on this planet will see it and possibly spontaneously combust. It's horrible!
Oh wait, no, I'm wrong -- that would actually be good. That would actually be a very good thing indeed.
1 comment:
LMAO!!!!
Okay. I admit that I'm not one for random/excessive skin shots - in stores, ads, magazines, whatever - but even I could not see anything wrong with that cover. I mean, it's a baby - breastfeeding. It's not as though the boob is the main focus of the picture, even, the baby's FACE is!!
Humans are just too strange. Newsflash - Boobs were MADE for babies, not for men (shocking, I know!) so what's the big deal!? Gah. I need to go and roll my eyes A LOT now.
Thanks for the laugh, though, doll ;)
Post a Comment