Can someone please explain why breast-feeding moms are being sold special covers and tents to save others from viewing this perfectly natural act? This marketing goes on in a world where breast implants are the most popular elective cosmetic surgery in the U.S.. Â Sadly women in the U.S. stop breast-feeding after 6-7 months, while in much of the world women continue breast-feeding until their children are 4 years old.
When Wired Magazine runs a cover usingÂ a cleavage shot forÂ a piece on stem cell tissue regeneration, editors thought it was â€œan appropriate, if provocative image. . .â€ They spread their misinformation with a readerâ€™s response chart claiming that all concerns about their cover was based on a fear of children, teens and/or spouses who might â€œlearn women have breasts.â€ Â World to Wired: no one is afraid of the fact that women have breasts. Most women donâ€™t want to be represented by a pair of “tits.” Too many believe that this secondary sexual characteristic, like menâ€™s beards, exists solely for menâ€™s titillation. Â If you still donâ€™t get it, imagine if menâ€™s scrota were fetishized in the same way, with men feeling a near desperate need to get dangerous silicone implants and wear padding to arouse their sexual partners.
Guess how many website addresses pop up if you google the words, â€œtit torture?â€Â Â Answer: 368,000. Maybe we should consider giving mothers the legal right to breast-feed in public.
As De Clarke wrote in her article, â€œPolitical Exposure: The Breast,â€
â€œPictures of her can be bought also – but always money must change hands, from one man to the next. And to protect the trade, what can be bought and is bought must never be given away, nor (Heaven forbid!) controlled by the property itself: the woman.â€
Image is from Emily Matz 1970’s poster