Completely OT...

Hm, a baby nursing on a cover of a parenting magazine. Why is it that I'm supposed to be shocked?

I'm less thrilled with the Spears photo, but, really, it's no more revealing than some Cosmo covers I've seen in checkout lines. Big woop. Oh yeah, she's (blush) "with child." Um, so?

I just wish we'd all grow up about skin and sexuality and natural functions. Sometime I feel that this country (USA) has the mental attitude of a junior-high boy. In a locker room. It's not attractive. Grow up, I say.

(Perspective: I'm the eldest of 5 children, Mother breast fed us all. I breast fed my two. I've taken art classes with nude models. My psyche is intact.)

ah... interesting topic... I personally think America is way too hung up on sex and nudity. Why is nudity a BAD thing? And that is how society views it... it's so taboo that people are hung up on it. I think MomonBike nailed it. Our society acts like junior high school kids. Sheesh.

I think both pictures are fine. Neither is offensive to me. Two adults engaged in sex is not offensive to me. Seeing a nipple or a bare butt is not offensive to me.

Child pornography and rape... Now THOSE are offensive.

I think it's ridiculous that we're so uptight as a society that telling a coworker "You look nice today" could lead to problems. And yes, in those words... and that is directly from a labor law atty. :rolleyes:

I find this whole thread fascinating
I see nothing wrong with either photo
Why should women feel ashamed of their breasts or their pregnant belly?
Why should other women feel ashamed or embarrased - or even irrate about it?


I'm with bikerchick -and a few others here. Western society is a prude and has become way too hung up on natural sexuality.

Tell me why it is ok for hundreds of thousands of young kids around the world to watch rated violent movies or play rated violent video/computer games ... but as soon as a movie or photos show flesh, or a natural sensual relationship, we try to censor it?

I strongly believe this back-to-front censoring by parents and society is contributing to the society we have evolving.

Don't we want children to grow up comfortable with their bodies, and guilt-free about intimate relationships? (I don't mean let them watch porn - I mean the movies that are great movies that happen to show or hint two consenting adults in a warm relationship show a bit of skin as they undress or as they share a bed - we know the details of what is going on (or is about to) - the young ones dont, but they can learn it is ok to feel good about yourself/the way you look and that one can be intimate in a good and gentle way.

Instead, we let the kids watch violent movies (I know a 4 year old who was given Dodge Ball as a birthday present, a 9 year old who has the Alien movies on DVD and a ten year old who has seen and heard everything Eminem has produced.

Instead we let them listen to all music on the radio and TV uncesnsored. If you enjoy it - fine - but what do you think those young ones are learning when they hear "Slap My B**ch Up" on the radio or watch some of the pop videos which are really soft porn showing subservient women as sexual beings?

Instead we buy kids PC games without condieration of the messages they constantly learn - I know 7-11 year olds that have Carmageddon, GTA, San Andreas, Terminator vs Predator, CovertOp...

Now, I am no prude - my music collection is vast and full of heavy rock and sexual innuendo... one of my alltime favourite movies is Fight Club. I enjoy playing GTA. But I am an adult...

So... do I find anything wrong with either of those pix?
Nope - they show humans as natural, beautiful and creative beings - isn't that what we want our children to be?

It couldn't be said better!!!

RoadRaven,
Thanks for putting it together so well. I completely agree with you. I just don't care for Britney and think that she had wrong reasons for displaying herself. But there is nothing wrong with the photo itself.
I grew up in Europe in a port city where you could always see topless women on the beach. It has never been an issue and nobody thought that it was offensive.
This is a prudish society and the kids are taught incorrectly. I hope that families will figure it out on their own.

Thank you to bikerchick68 & RoadRaven for saying EXACTLY everything that I was going to say!

If someone is offended at the sight of a bare breast (and, God forbid, a nipple), well then, DON'T LOOK!!

I have worked in the healthcare field for over 20 years - ten of those years were spent in OB/GYN & Pediatrics. (mid-late 80's). It was quite interesting how some people "handled" seeing women breastfeeding their babies.

On several occasions I was asked, "isn't there another room for them to "do that"? I don't want my little son/daughter being exposed to that".

I don't have any "human" kids -- only the furry feline kinds :D . (Truth be told, I think working in those two fields were EXCELLENT birth control).

I love babies. In fact, while working in OB/GYN, I was able to be in the delivery rooms/birthing rooms for the births of several babies :D . (both OB & midwife delivered babies).

I HAVE NEVER been witness to anything more BEAUTIFUL!! Absolutely miraculous.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LISE: I'm just a complete and total sucker for babies of all species. Every time I help a human baby into the world, I fall in love again for that little bit of time. I wish everybody could have that moment of awe and joy. When the baby looks up at mom for the first time, and puts his hand on her breast, safe, and home. I got to be part of that at 3 AM today. I'll never see it as anything but a miracle. A common, every day, around the world miracle. Let's celebrate that, and get on with bringing the peace these babies all deserve.

---

You chose a wonderful profession. I know that it is not easy, and you don't get a lot of sleep, but you are a part of that which is a miracle! I think that there is a very, very special bond between midwife and patient :).

Have a peaceful weekend everyone!

Denise

In the context of the magazine (Babytalk), and the topics covered, and the audience that it's marketed to, the photo of the nursing baby is not offensive.

The Bazaar cover is different. It's shows basically a pregnant nekkid lady and regardless if its Brittany or anyone else (say Demi Moore back when) is in bad taste. Now if the photo were contained within the Babytalk magazine I probably would not have mind. Context, its all about context.

But little OT further, our society is just not offended by much anymore. Around here, Pregnant gals walk around in belly t's and low rise jeans and shorts. No one wears maternity clothes its all around showing off that the big belly and large bellybutton! Sadly, half these proud prancing pregnant gals aren't even married!

Also we watch commercial for Victoria Secrets and "dancing" sanitary pads with wings. Sadly our children take this as second nature. Modesty is long gone out the window when 10 year old girls wear thongs, and sport belly button rings. So sad! Almost makes me glad to be old.

Edited to add: Before some blast me for being a prude - I am far from that. I have a degree in fine art and spent many hours drawing nude models. I do believe the human body is beautiful and we should not be ashamed. But I see things diferently from others and you have to realize not everyone, especially alot of men, see the naked female body as something artisically beautiful. We have to acknowledge there is this component in our society that sees women as sex object and basically less than human beings. Young women and girls do not undertsand this part of the human psyche and don't know how to protect themselves from unwanted advances. I believe alot of young girls wear thongs 'cause they are fashionable (as they sure aren't comfortable) not realizing what they do to men and well I will say it, the deviants in our society.

What makes the Bazaar cover any different from what is on Playboy? Really nothing. A naked women is a naked women. It will cause men to think bad thoughts.

OK sorry I realize I sound like an old women. These are just my thoughts. Nothing else.

I'm still trying to figure out why the boob/baby pic would be offensive regardless of what magazine it is on. There is no nippage, in or out of the baby's mouth, and by today's standard, as long as nipples are not showing, boobs can be aired on public TV well before the kiddies bedtime. Forgive me if I offend anyone for saying this but it sounds like the whinings of bible thumpers to me (I live in the bible belt so I am subjected to this thought process regularly).

As for Brittney - she's used up, has killed her reputation, and her music is desperate. Apparently she had an opportunity to try and make herself over (the dyed hair and extensions; naked and preggers) in hoping it would be well received like it was for Demi (altho I'm not well receiving). Besides that, the target market for the magazine shes on is more open to suggestive positioning and less likly to whine about "nudity". The mommy magazine's market is definately more of a "reserved" type (IMHO).

Brittney's just a wanna-be. Whether its Madonna or Demi, I still can't stand her.

CyclChyk--love your avatar! Great pup! :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyclChyk

(I live in the bible belt so I am subjected to this thought process regularly).

---

and where exactly is this?

Lise - love your avitar as well. Mine is my biggest baby Zeus. He is a 1year old boxer. I also have a 7yr old chihuahua named Kong; a 5 year old Chihuahua-dachsund mix named Bruiser; a 3 year old rat-terrier named Zoe; and a 36 year old hubby named Pain in my a** - I mean Bill..........

Chickwhorips - the bible belt is defined as: Those sections of the United States, especially in the South and Middle West, where fundamentalist religious beliefs prevail.

My area happens to be on the border of South Carolina and Georgia. I live where the Masters Golf Tournament is held every year, in Augusta. Here religion is very predominant and dictates much of our local society.

Gawd I long for New England!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bcipam

The Bazaar cover is different. It's shows basically a pregnant nekkid lady and regardless if its Brittany or anyone else (say Demi Moore back when) is in bad taste. Now if the photo were contained within the Babytalk magazine I probably would not have mind. Context, its all about context.

---

Hey there BC... excuse me while I deconstruct this statement more as a reflection of society, than of you personally... please understand these thoughts are not aimed at you.

*deep breath*

What I wonder, and I guess what I was trying to say in my earlier post (thank you Fresh, Lenusik, Denise) is why is it a problem to have a tasteful beautiful picture (no, I am NOT a fan of Brittney herself AT ALL) on any magazine? Why does it have to be a parenting magazine?

Parents know that pregnancy is miraculous and stunning, they know the gift they have been given in that child choosing them as her/his guardian.

What I would love to see is that the context for acknowledging the beauty of this time in a womans life be more than parenting circles.

We will always have young males drooling over every hint of "boobage" because everything else about women is hidden away and mysterious. Breasts are literally "out there" and an achievable 'goal'.

However, if we (as a society) took a sensible attitude to women's bodies and didn't ONLY show them as provocative and sexual, then surely our children would realise and understand - with our support and guidance through discussion - that women have this incredible power and beauty and sensuality that isn't always associated with sex.

Of course boys will grow into young men who are interested in sex - it is hormonally and socially programmed into them. We can make sure this interest doesn't become an obsession if we offer a different perspective.

But instead we endeavour to limit exposure to naked and semi-naked women to music videos, girly calendars, page 3 girls, rank lyrics, violent movies and so on.

How can some boys grow up with anything more than a drooling attitude when we do not give them a chance to see the naturalness and beauty that humanity is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CyclChyk

My area happens to be on the border of South Carolina and Georgia. I live where the Masters Golf Tournament is held every year, in Augusta. Here religion is very predominant and dictates much of our local society.
Gawd I long for New England!

---

Or even the northeastern US! I know just what you're talking about, CyclChyk, having been raised in NJ and New England and now living in the southeast. It can be a pretty intolerant culture sometimes. Everyone's pretty friendly at the surface, but don't let them find out that you don't go to church.

On the other hand, I don't want to overgeneralize. I've made some wonderfully understanding friends here, and our neighbors are the best I've ever had. You just have to seek out the ones who are more tolerant.

a slight thread drift, but still on the subject of preggers.

happened to be watching TLC last night and they had What Not to Wear: Baby on Board. never knew there was such cute maternity wear out there. they had three ladies that they made over. one a couple months preggers, a couple months to go and one that just had a second baby. i thought it was really good, and it made them all feel good and proud to be new mommys. then they had the guy from TLC's Cover Shot (show that takes mom's and makes them over and does a photoshoot with them) shoot all three of them for a beautiful picture.

back to orriginal pictures we were talking about....

Hm, where to start...

- Nothing offensive about the baby shot. It's eating, for goodness sake.
- What I really like about the naked pregnant pic is that it is one of the only times you will see a woman on the cover of a popular fashion magazine who isn't dangerously underweight. Otherwise, it is rather unoriginal.
- Now, about Spears getting flack about it - that's another kettle of fish. She's spent her whole career sexualizing & objectifying her body to an extreme that one could argue was without precedent. More so than Madonna. Worse, it was in a somewhat sleazy way with undertones of appearing underaged. Influenced a whole generation of young women's fashion choices. (Have any of you had to write up anyone yet for wearing way too risque clothing to work? I have, and the young woman had no clue why her clothing was problematic! After all, even little girls dress that way...we actually had to write up a dress code, blech!) Now she wants to put that all behind her (for now) and be an icon for pregnant female beauty?? Dream on. I live in Oregon, we have hippies here, so there are plenty of examples of pregnant beauty I can admire that aren't so overdone and far more creative... Ok, can you tell I don't like Spears? :o

BTW, I am not in the least bit religious, but I am deeply concerned about the effects of sexualizing children and very young women. Pam, you're not the only one who finds thongs for 10 year old girls disturbing.