Suckers For Boobs

Oh man. Over a week later and people are still talking about the Time Magazine cover story on attachment parenting. That kid nursing looks big enough to ride the bumper cars. He’s gonna get to college and be asked to sign up for a meal plan and he’ll be like, “Naw, I’m cool.”

It’s fun to pretend we have impassioned views on extreme breastfeeding. But the truth is we’re just suckers for boobs. Time was all like, “Made you look!”

If the photo had instead been of attachment cheerleader Dr. Bill Sears, the issue would have been ignored. If the cover had featured some National Geographic, African tribal titty, it would have been reviled.

(We have a black president, but our country is as racist as at any time since the civil rights movement. Witness the appalling outcry to casting black actors in “The Hunger Games.”)

Like every other sentient male, I did not read the article behind the boob. It’s standard practice with Playboy; and it’s a solid strategy with Time Magazine as well.

I did, however, examine the cover to see a) if there was any discernible nipple. (There is not). And b) whether she qualifies as a MILF. (Yes on Time’s cover, but not in real life. And I’m definitely not interested in sloppy seconds after her kid hit that.)

You can always count on Americans to experience mass hysteria when confronted by a national boob. You’ll recall Janet Jackson’s nipple-slip, which lasted less than one second, but so traumatized our country that the FCC levied a $550,000 fine.

We’re like the Taliban. Except instead of wanting to ban breasts, we prefer to stare awhile before loudly proclaiming outrage and emotional distress. (Then we stare some more… more head shaking… and maybe one last peek.)

America has this weird convention where you can openly depict breasts – no matter how suggestive or overt – as long as they aren’t completely bare. Nipple straining against fabric = good. Bare nipple = bad.

This is why we have Sports Illustrated’s swimsuit edition, the Victoria’s Secret catalog, and a nation of frustrated men. I’m all for a good tease. But we’re drawing an arbitrary line on indecency in the service of creating date rapists.

It’s too bad Time didn’t enlist breasts to spark a national conversation about, say, gun control. Or bullying. Because despite the flurry of controversy, attachment parenting is a non-issue. Ditto for Tiger Mothering, Bringing Up Bébés, and whichever faux parenting doctrine comes next.

Childhood has too many variables for a unified theory of parenting. Good people invariably raise good kids. And incompetent parents will never find salvation in trendy philosophies.

Featured image via boobstagram. The site (out of France) employs glorious quantities of cleavage in the service of battling breast cancer. It’s not entirely clear how this is meant to vanquish cancer, but I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt. Make like a bra and show your support.
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

, , , , , , ,

6 Responses to Suckers For Boobs

  1. Amanda May 17, 2012 at 8:29 am #

    That cover was merely to try and sell print copies, and nothing more in a time when a lot of us are reading more and more content online. It begs the question, is TIME magazine enough to compete in the modern age?

  2. Ginger1 May 17, 2012 at 10:21 am #

    Where did you find all dem titties for the artwork up top? Maybe Time should have used that.

  3. Bob Veres May 17, 2012 at 1:38 pm #

    I’m in complete agreement with you that these parenting crises are not crises at all. I call my blog Tiger Dad simply to poke some ridiculous fun at the Tiger Moms of the world. No, your children don’t come with instruction manuals, but yes, they will likely turn out all right.

  4. michelle May 18, 2012 at 7:06 am #

    don’t mean to go all pc Vassar College on your ass, but… arbitrary decency lines do not make date rapists. shame on you. (yes you are hilariously funny, but that line: notsomuch.)

    • Daddy Confidential May 18, 2012 at 8:27 pm #

      You Vassar girls can be so touchy. Wait that reminds me of a joke:

      Q: How many Vassar girls does it take to change a lightbulb?

      A: That’s “women” and that’s not funny.

      Q: How many Vassar women does it take to change a lightbulb?

      A: Five. One to change the bulb, and four to form a support group.

  5. Michele May 21, 2012 at 2:43 pm #

    Loved this (as usual!) I need to find better lines for this blog…

    The boob thing really ticks me the hell off. It’s a breast! Why are we so touchy about it! (Okay, that came off a bit different than I expected it…) ;) While we’re at it, can we do an article on teaching boys to pee in the toilet standing up (instead of training sitting down) and show, I dont know, a bare ass or perhaps some full front— wait, losing track here. What I’m trying to say (poorly- I think I have a cold coming on…) is that body parts are just that. We all have them (or some version of them). I’m all for decency and not tossing your junk out there for the world to see. I even tell my daughter to keep her dress down when she’s got LAYERS of girly stuff underneath. But the more we try to make things that are natural (boobs, to name a pair…) into something dirty, the more we have the people who toss their cookies at a nipple accident or a mom breastfeeding in a public place.

Leave a Reply