So the breast is ok for sexual pleasure, but not feeding your baby?

Let's think about that. It's not just by chance that a woman has milk in her breasts. Like it or not, it's there for one reason-to feed a baby. HOW is a woman breastfeeding gross & inappropriate, but yet we can have a practically nude woman on other magazine covers exposing much MORE of her breasts than a nursing mother, and that is not gross or inappropriate?

Danielle Bean posted on her blog about an issue of Babytalk magazine. Apparently CNN posted a story, quoting those who are "disgusted" by the cover and find it "inappropriate". Some in favor of the cover were also quoted.

Danielle expresses thoughts similar to mine, only she words it with much more class. I'm too temperamental to word it as well.

Gimme a break. While perhaps I would have chosen a subtler photo, let's be
honest here: We see lots more skin- I mean lots more skin- on the covers of
dozens of magazines in the grocery store checkout lane. And not just skin, but
skin exposed and presented in a decidedly sexual fashion... with no babies
attached. This is considered good, or at least acceptable by most. There is no
public uproar. No one is screaming "Gross!" (Well, okay except me and some other
like-minded moms who turn the magazines around in the racks before their
children can get an eyeful). So when hundreds of readers of a magazine designed
for mothers of infants respond to a breastfeeding photo by saying they think
it's "gross" and that they "shredded it," something is seriously askew. I'll bet
some of these same outraged and disgusted readers have a copy of Cosmo sitting
on the coffee table in their living rooms.