Babytalk magazine generates controversy with nursing cover
NEW YORK (AP) -- "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. "I immediately turned the magazine face down," wrote another. "Gross," said a third.
These readers weren't complaining about a sexually explicit cover, but rather one of a baby nursing, on a wholesome parenting magazine -- yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight of a nursing breast, even as breast-feeding itself gains more support from the government and medical community.
Babytalk is a free magazine whose readership is overwhelmingly mothers of babies. Yet in a poll of more than 4,000 readers, a quarter of responses to the cover were negative, calling the photo -- a baby and part of a woman's breast, in profile -- inappropriate.
The rest of the story and pic of the cover causing all the uproar:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/07/27/nur....ap/index.html
The responses to this cover have me baffled. I mean this is a natural part of life. I've seen plenty of magazine covers with half dressed women exposed in a sexual nature and I didn't hear about anyone writing in opposing to it. (And some of these same magazines can be found in doctor's offices, etc.) I was really surprised to hear so many women speaking against the cover. Afterall this is a 'baby magazine.' 
Maybe it's me but I don't look at that cover and go, "Oh my God this is just so gross!" Women have been breastfeeding since the beginning of time.
*Also, I agree hayle yeah Diddy is too old for this mess. That's why I didn't even respond. He's going to spend $1 mil. to abort the baby when he could have spent a couple of dollars for some condoms? Second thought he could have gotten some from one of his boys for free.
Threaded Mode
