Consumerist
To the right, the recent cover of Babytalk Magazine, a monthly periodical dedicated to new mothers... a cover that has sparked some moral outrage amongst America's prudish set.
What's the big deal? Apparently, it's the depiction of an areola-less tits on the cover of a periodical. "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," wrote one complainant.
Giant? Hardly. I know giant boobs when I see them and while I will admit that that breast seems huge compared to that baby's head, it's an optical illusion. Breast size is not measured in proportion to the skull size of small infants; in my book, a breast is only truly giant if it's bigger than the mother's head. Which is when you ask the mother out on a date, not write in to complain. If anything, the problem here is that breast isn't giant enough to assuage all possible complaints.
In fact, I'm not even really sure this is a photograph of a mother. Couldn't it just as easily be someone without pants sitting on a baby's face? Infant ass-to-mouth is certainly a hell of a less appalling than breast feeding, yet we'd wager to say would be met with less complaints.
