Gumbo News Network Op-Ed Page: In Which I Address the Subject of Breasts

Let me state up front and categorically, I do not have breasts.  So anything that follows is written from the perspective of observation, research and study, not from that of possession.  So, to the point.

While watching the local news tonight, noshing on a delish BLT sandwich, my attention was gotten by a "coming up on Channel 11 News: the link between breast feeding and Type II diabetes" announcement that the fine folks at the station assured me I didn't want to miss.  Fair enough, I'm a curious type, so I stayed tuned.

I thought the story would be about breastfeeding reducing the risk in the child.  Not an unreasonable assumption given the documented benefits it has for the wee ones.  As it turns out, a new study appears to indicate that mothers who breastfeed for at least a month or longer significantly reduce their risk of developing diabetes later in life.  Now this is pretty good news.

So I am watching this news story, and the anchor woman is intoning the report while a collage of images is run across the screen.  Stock footage of moms and babies,  doctors in lab coats, women breastfeeding in a variety of settings, and...wait, rewind that.

Women breastfeeding their infants in a variety of settings...progressive, right?

Not quite.  I never saw the actual activity.  Why?  Because the infant/nipple interface was always obstructed by things like a vase of flowers, or other strategically placed object.  Oblique camera angles were utilized.  Sharply focused shots of said vase in foreground with unfocused outline of mother and child in the background.  It was as if they were going to do every thing they could to report on the subject without resorting to the subject itself.

They may as well skipped the images altogether.  Because doesn't it seem ridiculous to talk about breast feeding in a visual medium without using images of what is being talked about?

I can only imagine the contortions the media outlets have to go through to editorially justify the content.  I'm sure there are all sorts of rules in place that supposedly govern these situations.  But come on, it's breastfeeding, not sex or some other activity many people might claim to find objectionable.  This is a particularly goofy form of censorship.

Question:  am I the only person on the planet who is capable of separating the sexual aspects from the nurturing aspects vis a vis the female breast?  Am I the only person who thinks it is possible to discuss one without involving the other?  I hope not.  Maybe I'm weird, but when I see a mother breastfeeding her child, I see an act of singular beauty and femininity; I don't think "Huhhuh, boobies, huhhuh!"

I got the impression that someone was really scared about backlash.  I'm not suggesting that 'anything goes' all the time, every time', but for cryin' out loud, people, this is a completely normal, nurturing activity that has nothing to do with "gettin' busy"*.  It occurred to me that the problem is not so much in the mind of the viewer, it is in the mind of the censor.  Has it not occurred to them that selective editing such as that only increases the likelihood of generating the kind of attention and questions they are seeking to avoid?

"Why is that baby's head blurry, daddy?"
"Mommy, do baby heads always disappear behind stuff when they do that? And what are they doing?"

It also struck me that this reluctance to be open about the topic says a lot about the minds of the beholder.  To go to such lengths as they did to show without really showing, implies that somewhere, someone thinks there is something wrong or objectionable about breastfeeding.  It implies a sense of shame about something which we shouldn't be ashamed of. It amazes me that a news cycle that has no problem showing burning vehicles, combat footage, chalk outlines with bloodstains, and freely talks about murder...treats a suckling infant like a bearer of moral turpitude.

Don't get me wrong;  I appreciate a nice pair of breasts in the way that the average hetero male** seems to across the board.  I like them and find them inordinately intriguing, but in the right context, one that is far away from the nurturing act of breastfeeding.  I think it is a sad indication of a societal mindset that automatically assumes a worst or more distasteful viewpoint whenever we acknowledge that (gasp!) our bodies have parts that do things as nature intended.  And that says more about misplaced priorities than it does about the ability to appreciate beauty.

Why do so many people seem to freak out about this?  Nursing and sex may both be primal activities***, but they are very different.  Can we at least stop acting as if they don't exist?

*Yes, I concede its gettin' busy that produces infants, i.e. the feeders, in the first place. But the point is its a normal activity with its own beauty, rooted in the cycle of life.
**I say 'hetero male' because that is the only gender-associated viewpoint of which I can speak with any authority.  It is certainly possible that other viewpoints find them just as attractive.
***Some may say "Yeah, well, defecation is a natural, primal activity, so should we show that?"  My answer is no.  Not because I refuse to acknowledge its existence, but because pooping is gross and boring.  Not much beauty there.