One of these days I really would like for someone to explain to me what the Big Deal with nipples is in America. It's actually the only part of the breast that men and women share. Why is it so wrong to see a woman's nipple, but not a man's? But I digress....

In regard to the Baby Talk cover photo, doesn't the baby attached to the breast detract from the sexuality of it all? It kind of puts me in a different frame of mind.

I nursed both my babies and did not find it inconvenient or bothersome. (I never nursed in a bathroom as some would suggest, just as I would not dine in one.) Some people do become uncomfortable or nervous around breastfeeding, but you just have to go ahead calmly, like it's the most natural thing in the world (it is), and the panic usually subsides pretty quickly. The right kinds of clothing and/or blanket also help. It's your baby's health - to hell with the prudes.

Considering the backlash, it's great to see the Baby Talk web page include the following request:

"Do you have a favorite photo of you breastfeeding your baby? Mail it in, and we may print it in an upcoming issue."

Breastfeeding could become as normal as walking with more exposure.

>>Only 25% were bothered by this. We all know that some people in this world still don't favor breastfeeding--it's not a surprise. It's not news.>>

You make a huge (yet convenient) error in equating the number of people who didn't like picture with the number of people who don't favor breastfeeding (if such a demographic even exists). Creating melodrama where none exists only makes the breastfeeding mothers looking like people who get off on being victims.

of retail companies that accomodate lactating mothers. I just used the nursing room there this weekend. It made the shopping experience a true pleasure, especially relative to my excursions to the mall where I end up ducking out to my minivan to nurse.

Hi,

I, who nursed my two children for years and years (they could read), found the cover photo disturbing. It is hardly your usual madonna and child picture.

The fact that it shows an older infant who clearly knows what he (she) is doing rather than a newborn who is acting on pure instinct is surprising but fits with the subject matter of the article. What cannot be explained is why the child is getting milk from a disembodied hemisphere of flesh rather than from a woman. Did the mother detach her breast and go elsewhere?

I nursed both of my children for over a year. I never experienced any public negativity. I think it's more likely that women don't nurse longer since it can be so time-intensive. Particularly if the baby is in day care.

I clicked on the photo and I have to agree that I found the magazine cover to be a bit much. I have seen photos of nursing babies that were sweet and intimate. The breast was usually exposed and there was never a cover-up. But the breast pictured here is completely overwhelming. Kind of pornstar-esque. And I have never seen an infant nurse like that. It looks painful, like she's sucking on a straw.

so conceptual that the baby looks like he's blowing up a balloon. It comes across more as the idea of a breast than a real breast.

. . . when Broadsheet writers have nothing better to write about. So if a breast photo on the cover of a parenting magazine attracts criticism -- that criticism is WRONG, of course.

If on the other hand Vanity Fair magazine prints a photo layout with many breasts in evidence, then THAT is wrong because . . . it gives Broadsheet writers something to complain about. (Don't worry, no one cares about having consistent principles.)

And if a sports brassiere company depicts the effect of running on the motion of breasts (completely irrelevant to their products or customers, of course) then THAT is VERY BAD, especially since it opens up the possibility that someone who enjoys looking at the naked female breast for non-business reasons might derive some pleasure from it.

Correction: The concern is that a male might derive pleasure from it. (It's OK if it's a lesbian, though. I'm sure you can clearly see the perfectly logical reasoning here.)

(P.S. The word "flak" in the sense of negative feedback is corrrectly spelled without a "c" in it. A "flack" -- on the other hand -- is a P.R. person.)

Only 25% were bothered by this. We all know that some people in this world still don't favor breastfeeding--it's not a surprise. It's not news.

So why does the article focus *entirely* on the dissatisfied minority, with no mention that those in favor are the vast majority?

You know, breasts aren't hidden because they're sexual. They're sexual because they're hidden. Most body parts kept hidden because of the time and culture become erotic. Conversely, nudist groups are famously non-sexual in nature.

There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, until there is disapproval at their appearance for their intended use. Having nursed two children, the extreme sexualization of the breast seems a little silly to me. While I nursed discreetly in public, after a while it seemed weird to go to so much trouble to be discreet - sort of like eating while keeping your fork covered with your napkin. For a woman who is new to nursing, it is particularly difficult to combine this new skill she's still learning with trying to keep the shirt or sweater or opening or god forbid blanket where it's supposed to be.

That said, the baby in the pic doesn't look that well latched on to me and if the emphasis is supposed to be on breastfeeding, why is the photo almost all breast and not so much feeding?

A reader thinks boobies are "gross"? Was this reader an 8-year-old boy?

Sheesh...

The Puritans were not so, err, "puritanical" as people make them out to be. If you dig into history, you'll find that they were not really anti-sex. They just thought sex, or at least the raising of children, should be within marriage. If you look at the records, there were plenty of kids born earlier than nine months after a wedding, BTW. And, as previously mentioned, they breastfed their kids, and didn't hassle anyone about it.

In response to the comment about a nursing 3-year-old being creepy, well, I and my sister, neither of us SAHMs, nursed our kids past their 3rd birthdays. Most kids don't nurse that long, but some do, and there are plenty of health benefits of extended nursing to both child and mother (strengthened immune systems, reduced breast-cancer risks, happier kids and even, possibly, higher kid IQs). It's not super-common (though more common in Europe than in the U.S.), but it works for some, so live and let live, and don't be judgmental.

And Cosmic, I love you girl, I'm confident that you'll make a great mother if and when you do have kids (even if you bottle-feed exclusively), but I wish you would let go of your bugagoo about breastfeeding. It's not something that should really concern you at this stage in your life.