Thursday, July 27, 2006

I HATE Being Human


What the fuck is wrong with people? Wars go on constantly over who's magical-guy-in-the-sky rules. We blow the shit out of people for oil. We ignore genocide in Africa. That's all ok.

So let me get this straight, every woman has breasts. They fed many of us when we were widdle babies. And since a few guys can't control their boners when the see some breast flesh...women have to be ashamed to breast feed?

It's the same reason women in certain countries have to be covered from head to toe...so their men don't get tempted. Control yourselves you fucking animals.

I hate you all. Except for you blog readers...and maybe my family...and maybe the people I hang out with...and maybe my mailman...but the rest of you can go fuck yourselves!

'Breast' Cover Gets Mixed Reaction

By JOCELYN NOVECK, AP National Writer

(07-27) 13:47 PDT 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 greater 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.

One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it.

"I shredded it," said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. "A breast is a breast — it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."

It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public — a subject of enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term: "lactivists," meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse wherever she needs to.

"I'm totally supportive of it — I just don't like the flashing," she says. "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."

Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover, precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her 3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast.

"Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast — regardless of what it's being used for."

Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public. "There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part — even part of a body part."

"It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!" she adds. "Mostly, they are trying to be discreet."

Kane says that since the August issue came out last week, the magazine has received more than 700 letters — more than for any article in years.

"Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old.

The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half — 43 percent — of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places.

The debate rages at a time when the celebrity-mom phenomenon has made breast-feeding perhaps more public than ever. Gwyneth Paltrow, Brooke Shields, Kate Hudson and Kate Beckinsale are only a few of the stars who've talked openly about their nursing experiences.

The celeb factor has even brought a measure of chic to that unsexiest of garments: the nursing bra. Gwen Stefani can be seen on babyrazzi.com — a site with a self-explanatory name — sporting a leopard-print version from lingerie line Agent Provocateur. And none other than Angelina Jolie wore one proudly on the cover of People. (Katie Holmes, meanwhile, suffered a maternity wardrobe malfunction when cameras caught her, nursing bra open and peeking out of her shirt, while on the town with husband Tom Cruise.)

More seriously, the social and medical debate has intensified. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently concluded a two-year breast-feeding awareness campaign including a TV ad — criticized as over-the-top even by some breast-feeding advocates — in which NOT breast-feeding was equated with the recklessness of a pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull.

There have been other measures to promote breast-feeding: in December, for example, Massachusetts banned hospitals from giving new mothers gift bags with free infant formula, a practice opponents said swayed some women away from nursing.

Most states now have laws guaranteeing the right to breast-feed where one chooses, and when a store or restaurant employee denies a woman that right, it has often resulted in public protests known as "nurse-ins": at a Starbucks in Miami, at Victoria's Secret stores in Racine, Wis. and Boston, and, last year, outside ABC headquarters in New York, when Barbara Walters made comments on "The View" seen by some women to denigrate breast-feeding in public.

"It's a new age," says Melinda Johnson, a registered dietician and spokesperson for ADA. "With the government really getting behind breast-feeding, it's been a jumping-off point for mothers to be politically active. Mommies are organizing. It's a new trend to be a mommy activist."

Ultimately, it seems to be a highly personal matter. Caly Wood says she's "all for breast-feeding in public." She recalls with a shudder the time she sat nursing in a restaurant booth, and another woman walked by, glanced over and said, "Ugh, gross."

"My kid needed to eat," says the 29-year-old from South Abingdon, Mass. And she wasn't going to go hide in a not-so-clean restroom: "I don't send people to the bathroom when THEY want to eat," she says.

But Rebekah Kreutz thinks differently. One of six women who author SisterhoodSix, a blog on mothering issues, Kreutz didn't nurse her two daughters in public, and doesn't really feel comfortable seeing others do it.

"I respect it and think women have the right," says Kreutz, 34, of Bozeman, Mont. "But personally, it makes me really uncomfortable."

"I just think it's one of those moments that should stay between a mother and her child."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

SGT. DAGOSTINO

Havent you heard that the army reserve in the US ONLY take people betwine the ages 40 and 60 or people who have served in the main army core where are out soldiors when our homes are flooding bugger all they are nowhere to be found mabey more people would be in the army if you could sign up and help people without being sent out to die in a warzone esspecialy the case for reserve troops who have never even been train'd for full scale firefights under preasure.

Anonymous said...

SGT. DAGOSTINO,

You are an idiot on so many levels.
It's been years since you've posted so i don't know why i'm bothering as you'll never read this.
Still, perhaps you've learn't to use the Caps Lock key by now?

Firstly,
The term "sand niggers"... yeah, I thought that lent a very genuine intellectual edge to your argument. I'm sure you hooked a lot of people into your way of thinking just by that.

And also what makes you think that joining the army is a way of "changing things?"

All you'd be doing is being forced to follow orders that you arn't allowed to question.
Also brainwashed as to why you are doing what you are doing (giving it some moralistic spin rather than admitting that it's about political power, oil, money and all the rest.)

So ok, you're in the Army.
Well done for you.
Now you can go kill people and get paid for it.
You've been brainwashed son.

You really believe that the American military is on some global moral crusade?
Are you so naive to think that it's not about money and power?

Wake up.

Anonymous said...

Cool, misanthropy at it's foremost. Writer has one more supporter.
Me.

Anonymous said...

Firstly, i cann't possibly take somebody seriousley who cannot spell, and dido to "anon" cannot use the capslock key properly. Secondly hypocracy is a trait i absolutely wont stand for, so mr sgt. mentally derranged or what ever your name is, if you want to have a bitch go to your woman about it, though i doubt you have one which is why you're releasing all your big manly testosterone levels on the computer...which i'm sure is what you do every night.
It seems to me you're an unhappy man, letting go of all you worldy woes on an internet site to an audience, that quite frankly doesn't give a shit. On the account of, the article, it's about breastfeeding you numb nut.

goshops said...

SGT. Whatever... You are in the Army, you should know best what is going on over in Iraq and the middle east as well as your fellow soldiers. I for one, have several friends in the service.

Secondly, give the males of the species more credit. There is such a thing as sexual nudity and non-sexual nudity. If all nudity was sexual nudity, than everyone in nudist colonies would be walking around sexually aroused.

I don't have a problem with the image, nor do I have a problem with nudity period. All humans look the same, all women have fat filled sacks of flesh attached to their bodies for the purpose of feeding the young. Even men have breasts, but you don't see people complaining because a man walks without a shirt.

Nothing is more shameful about the body than the clothes used to cover it.

Anonymous said...

Keep your milky tits to yourselves.