It doesn't even have to be sexy. It just has to have a positive presence. And it does here.

Your point still stands, but I'd also like to add that it doesn't NEED to be sexy to be acceptable (I'm sure you're not in disagreement). I have mixed feelings about the cover, on the one hand its a good break from "eew breastfeeding, gross!" But I'm also a little bit creeped out by the "private photos" bit, a little bit too voyeuristic to me. But hey, maybe I'm too cynical ;)

Why does everything women do have to be sexy? That's a baby eating food.
I'm glad she's making breastfeeding most visible, which is vital for women to be allowed do so in public because it is pointedly NOT a sexy act even though breasts are involved.

What? Sexy? Why does positive representation = sexy? What's so sexy about this photo? What's sexy about breastfeeding? Why has sexiness have to be the rubric for validating anything a woman does, including feeding her kid?

In short, what the hell, Feministing?!

What? Sexy? Why does positive representation = sexy? What's so sexy about this photo? What's sexy about breastfeeding? Why does sexiness have to be the rubric for validating anything a woman does, including feeding her kid?

In short, what the hell, Feministing?!

Uh, I don't understand. Do we want to pornify breastfeeding? Why, exactly, is the sexing up of feeding a baby a good thing?

I breastfeed my son, and when I am doing that, I really do not want people rating the sexiness of it.

Isn't the whole problem with public breastfeeding the fact that mothers are made to feel like they are trying to get sexual attention? And that people see it as sexual?

To clarify, I don't think the picture is sexy; it's just a picture of a mother feeding her child. What I don't understand is why the poster thinks it's sexy, and even if it were a sexy picture, why that would be a good thing.

I think that this is a positive thing because she looks beautiful while doing something natural that people tend to look away at.

I would have been really confused if it hadn't been pointed out that she was breastfeeding. Maybe it's just my eyes and my monitor, but it's kind of obscure.

I kind of have to agree with a lot of other commenters. I thought one of the main things that is discussed when we talk about the villification of breastfeeding is the link between breasts and sexuality. If breasts weren't seen as sexual naughty parts that need to be covered (or at least need to maintain the illusion that they are only for sex, and not natural life-aiding purposes), then people might not be as freaked out by breastfeeding in public.

And, frankly, when I saw this picture I didn't think "sexy." I thought, "beautiful." The way the photo is set, she just looks like a natural, happy mother. You can see the joy on her face. I don't want to think of it as sexy, because I don't think that is what she, the photographer, or anything about it conveys.

Since the "sexy" bit has already been addressed..

I love how the picture is minimally doctored (if doctored at all, but I'm skeptical since it's on the cover of a magazine). Personally, I think it's a positive portrayal of not only breastfeeding, but seeing how much more gorgeous she (and other women) are without painting themselves (or having the glossies do it for them).

I think the pic is lovely. I don't see anything wrong with calling it sexy. You can't have it both ways, some people complain about pregnant woman not being allowed to be sexy, then when they do embrace it, out comes the negativity. I think the photograph is well done, without being exploitive.

OFFS, she can be sexy, not sexy, whatever. That is not the point.

The point is the poster said 'See? Breastfeeding can be sexy!' - as though the challenge for breastfeeding mothers is being seen as sexy enough. Quite the contrary, the problem is facing a tidal wave of public judgement that we are publicly performing a sex act, when we are not.

@ Mikela

The problem, as I see it, is two-fold.

1. A major part of the reason breast-feeding is considered taboo in our culture is that breasts are considered sexual by definition. Although there is nothing sexual about breastfeeding, just the potential for a glimpse of exposed female nipple is scandalous. Saying that breastfeeding can be sexy doesn't help much. It's import to assert that it can be non-sexy, that it can just be.

2. Sexy is sort of being used as a synonym for "acceptable" here. As in, people make a big deal of public breastfeeding, but in fact it's fine. Except, instead of "fine," it's "sexy," which reinforces the idea that sexiness is the ultimate measure of acceptability. So, in order to make breastfeeding acceptable, we should look to make it sexy.

Also, breastfeeding and being pregnant aren't really the same thing--one is an action and the other is a [temporary] physical state. The issue you raise regarding pregnancy is a result of the false idea that a pregnant woman cannot be attractive/sexual. In reality, over the roughly nine-month duration of her pregnancy, a woman is likely to, unless she is asexual, be sexy/sexual and not sexy/sexual at various times. A better analogy than breastfeeding would be a woman who has a kid. She, too, may be sexy/sexual at some times and not sexy/sexual at others.

The point is that breastfeeding needs to be accepted and neutral. A woman should neither have to prove it's sexy and therefore okay or not sexy and therefore okay. Sexy is not a relevant concept here.

I don't like how this picture is intended to be for Brad Pitt only. Like it's a naughty and secret thing to be breastfeeding your child.

I had read about these pictures the other day. Apparently, Brad Pitt made sure to include pics of Angelina Jolie breastfeeding. The site I read about them on wondered if W would even include them in the article, and here is one right on the cover! That’s just all kinds of awesome.

I think part of the discomfort comes from the cognitive dissonance that in our culture breasts are sexy but maternity isn't.

I think we should be able to embrace the sensual and even the sexual in maternity and mothers -- after all, that's how you become a mother in the first place.

I think the picture is lovely. It such a tender moment, though, that I almost feel as if I'm intruding.

Yuk! Spawnling sucking at mother's teat. Yes, I'm childfree for a reason (actually MANY reasons).

I don't like how this picture is intended to be for Brad Pitt only. Like it's a naughty and secret thing to be breastfeeding your child.

But I'm also a little bit creeped out by the "private photos" bit, a little bit too voyeuristic to me. But hey, maybe I'm too cynical ;)

I don’t know if this makes a difference, but these pictures were taken by Brad Pitt specifically for W. So, even though they billed them as “private photographs,” they were always intended to be published in the magazine.

@Sandi,

I completely see where you're coming from. I agree with the aspect of me using a better example, my main point was to show that when woman try to reclaim being sexy or viewed as such, they get very extreme black and white responses. However, whats wrong with saying that breastfeeding is sexy? I don't think any one is using sexy as is a synonym for acceptable. I didn't get that at all from the post. I think people are saying, "This is a lovely, artistic image and it/she looks/is very sexy." I don't think its that deep. Sometimes it seems as if though people are looking for a reason to get riled up, when in reality, there is none.

childfree_feminist: That was disgusting, rude, and completely unnecessary.

Aww, were you not breastfed childree_feminist? ;)

I agree that the use of the word 'sexy' wasn't the best choice but I think Miriam might have used sexy as a euphemism for something that is desirable (in this case, the act of breastfeeding, not the breasts themselves). In any case, the picture is beautiful and I welcome anything which portrays breastfeeding in a positive light.

i LOVE Angelina. she's always been one of my fave actresses who gets strong roles in Hollywood, unlike other actresses.

the photo is nice, beautiful, feminine, and not at all "sexy" like Feministing claim it to be. I dont see anything sexy about it. It looks relaxed, happy and NATURAL!!!

I agree with Mikela. Instead of just appreciating this positive portrayal of motherhood and nursing everyone is getting riled up over a single word choice. Nurturing a human life is beautiful and sexy, nothing wrong with that.

childfree_feminist: That was disgusting, rude, and completely unnecessary.

Hear, hear.

@Mikela

How do you know that she is trying to be seen as sexy? I'm sure that even Angelia Jolie wants a day off from that sometimes.

Also, 'being sexy or viewed as such' is kind of the last thing that women need to reclaim, seeing as how our entire value as human beings is judged by this standard.

Childfree - and I thank god that you are - your choice does NOT give you pass to slam on women who choose to have kids and breastfeed.

I would consider breastfeeding one of the most public feminist statements I've ever made. In the park, in the mall, in restaurants, without hiding away or turning away from any stares. It's just my body, doing what it's naturally designed to do, without judgment of beauty or morals.

As so many have said before me, it's not sexy. It's a meal, and society should take W's lead and stop trippin'.

That lovely photo makes it's own statement. Your "sexy" line is unnecessary.

That lovely photo makes it's own statement. Your "sexy" line is unnecessary.

I dont see anything sexy about it. It looks relaxed, happy and NATURAL!!!

See, I find "relaxed, happy, and natural" part is what makes her sexy in that picture.

I'm not sure why people are so upset. Breastfeeding can be sexy, yes? And, that's exactly what Miriam said. That it can be sexy - not that everyone should find it sexy or that all breastfeeding women should strive to be sexy - just a simple statement that "It can be sexy." I'm sure that there are many breastfeeding women's partners out there that would echo her sentiment.

When I look at this photo, I see a young mother and her child through the eyes of an adoring partner. The partner may be unseen, but he (or she) is very present in the image and it is his (or her) relationship with the mother that people are picking up on when they say it is romantic and, yes, sexy.

@Valerie

I never said that she was trying to be seen as sexy. I only commented on woman who were reclaiming being seen as sexual, and I also said that the picture was beautiful. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but where did I say she was "trying"? For the record, I don't think she has to/or is trying, she already is sexy. And she looks amazing on that cover:)

I am going to draw some fire here but...

Who ever thought that feminist would over-react from a slip of the pen (sarcasm).

Poor word choice. Sure. Positive message? Yes

Which one should you walk away with?

@Valerie,

I never said she was "trying" sexy. I only commented on women reclaiming the sexual sides during pregnancy and after, and I also commented on how beautiful she looked in the picture. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but where did I say she was "trying"? For the record, I don't think she is/or has to try to be sexy, she already is. And Jolie looks absolutely beautiful on that cover.

I agree with ShelbyWoo, rumble, Mikela and some others. This can be sexy. It's certainly beautiful, and I don't think sexy takes away from that.

But, the point that is bothering me is that I have never felt more pressure about a certain issue than about breastfeeding. From family, friends, and feminists alike everyone pressures me to breastfeed. I don't want to breastfeed and that's my choice, and I'm not going to feel bad about it and don't appreciate being made to feel bad about it. I respect other women's choices to breastfeed, it's just not mine. I know this post isn't specifically addressing this issue, but I have felt in the past that posts about breastfeeding have shamed women that don't make that choice.

End rant.

I don't think breastfeeding is in any way sexy.

I also don't think that Angelina Jolie or the admiration we have for her is in any way sexy.

I also think the word "sexy" is thrown around so much that it's become meaningless. iPods, for instance, are "sexy" to some.

Sexy, to me, is more about a woman's intelligence than anything else. The sexiest scene I've ever witnessed in a film was that of Virginia Madsen and Paul Giamatti's discussion on wine in the film Sideways.

A woman will sooner turn me to butter with words than she ever will with a wry grin and her tits hanging out.

childfree,

I'm a little.. ok a lot.. eeked out by bodily fluids including breastmilk, but people need to get over their eeked-outedness enough to let babies eat, even if you think they are "spawnling"s.

It's a wonderful photo of a beautiful and happy woman. I admire the work Angelina Jolie has done and the approach she appears to be taking to raising her children...but I can't help but think that this is on the cover of W because it's a glimpse of her breasts. Because they are sexy, and she's sexy, and that's what women are supposed to be like, even when they're pregnant/breastfeeding/working two jobs.

I realize that wasn't what Miriam was saying, and I agree that it's good to have positive images of breastfeeding available. I just don't think W is all that enlightened.

Yes, I suppose it doesn't help that many people simply ignore definitions of words. Sexy means sex-y, sex-like, sexually exciting or appealing. And that has nothing to do with giving a baby a meal.

Yeah it IS sexy and cute at the same time. Can’t those two things exist at the same time? Some of the people on here are too reactionary. Sexy doesn’t always have to mean violent porno ass-pounding. Or does it? Geez. What’s wrong with y’all? Makes me wonder what some of you reactionaries are thinking about when it comes to “sexy.” Don’t blame other people for not being as myopic as you are.

I love this photo because their is no glitz and glamour to it just a woman feeding her child.

As a side note on another feminist site a commentor said something to the effect that breastfeeding is some how a tool of the patriarchy because it supports the idea that women should stay home and not work, it also supports the idea that women should put their families before themselves and denies women their own bodies. It had never occurred to me that brestfeeding could be viewed as anti-feminist. I always thought it was a feminist thing to do because you are utilizing the main function of your body part and not letting it become sexualized.

Kudos to the first eight or so commenters.
People trying to argue that 'sexy' is an innocent snyonym for 'beautiful' - or that "Hey, whatever it's a compliment!" - need their heads checked.
This is not getting hysterical over a pen-slip, and bullshit to those who defend idiotic messages with a pen-slip defense. If you automatically or unconsciously code 'good' as 'sexy', that's the WHOLE PROBLEM.
I wonder, is Mikela going to get 'all riled up over nothing' when I (accidentally) call him a Giant Douchebag?

Valerie - I think we are all aware of what "sexy" means. And, no giving a baby a meal is not sexy, but that doesn’t mean one cannot find the person giving the baby the meal sexy.

The problem is not with one perceiving a breastfeeding woman as sexy, the problem is when one uses those feelings to marginalize, ostracize, or belittle the breastfeeding woman. Just like thinking that woman on the subway is uber hot is ok, cat-calling her or grabbing her ass as she walks by is not. Besides, as much as we'd all like too, no one can police people’s thoughts.

Halite – Not a single commenter here has said the sexy is a synonym for beautiful or “hey, it’s just a compliment” nor anything remotely similar. We are having a civil discussion here. If you cannot join in without conflating or calling people names, might I suggest you refrain from commenting.

sorry, that was directed at halldite

Artistically, it's a lovely photo.
I feel very ambivalent about Angelina Jolie. I love some of her movies and I think that she genuinely wants to do well for the world. But her, Brad et al live this lifestyle of conspicuous consumption that I find at complete odds with what she preaches. She flies as a hobby and the family flies everywhere, but that leaves a huge carbon footprint. That's going to negatively impact the poor children that she champions. Wtf?
I just really hate celebrity activism because most of them are so ignorant, like when Oprah & Bono were in love with Jeffrey Sachs, despite his involvement in decimating the economies of Russia and Bolivia.
/rant
Anyway, lovely picture.

Moxie,
I know this is a bit of a thread derail but angelina and brad pitt have done numerous charitable things and do not call the same attention to it that someone like Bono does. They supported the No on Prop 8 movement, gave massive money to new orlean's after Katrina and have donated any of the money made from tabloid pictures to charities. I have issues with the way I feel they often play their biological children off of their adopted children but I feel that one cannot criticize them on their charitable stance to the world.

MzBitca,
They've undoubtedly done some good things, but I don't think they've thought out their positions very thoroughly. It's not their fault that they have a mansion in New Orleans when thousands haven't returned yet, but it is tacky. It's not their fault that they're rich, but they have six children, three of them biological, and they live a very high flying life that is undoubtedly taking resources from those they claim to champion. How can they create more children when there are so many going without? Why do they have to have places to live in NYC, LA, New Orleans, & France, when there are people living in Penn Station? Why not have one mansion instead of multiple? Why not give birth in a hospital instead of shutting down a damn country for your birth? You can throw money at a problem all you want, and they've given a lot, but nothing's going to change until attitudes change.

perhaps Miriam thought that this picture is sexy. what's wrong with that?

i think this picture is beautiful. she looks like a happy momma. ain't nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps Brad thinks his wife is sexy? Maybe that was the point? He took the pictures, didn't he? Was it just for them to be published, or was he trying to make a statement with them?

Maybe he thinks his wife and the act of breastfeeding are beautiful and natural and healthy and maternal AND sexy. Why must they be mutually exclusive?

I see the point people are making in getting upset over the constant sexualization of female body parts that can be used for entirely practical reasons, but why do we have to slap our own labels on Angelina's body?

Call it whatever you like, but it's great to see breastfeeding portrayed in such a positive light. That's what I see in that picture.

I notice that this is W's 'Art Issue'. While I think that breastfeeding is beautiful and can certainly be portrayed artistically, I worry that by pairing breastfeeding with high art and celebrity photos it gives the impression to everyday people that it is unusual, exclusive and/or a luxury. I'd like to see a magazine cover with a regular mom breastfeeding her baby on a bench at the mall, not hidden away in some 'feeding room', bathroom or car. THAT would blow me away -- a sign that breastfeeding is moving towards normalization among the general public.

@ShelbyWoo

Thank you for the back up, and I completely agree. As far as the "synonym for sexy" argument goes, I was thinking the exact same thing: where is hallidite getting his/her info? B/c I don't see anyone saying that.

@Hallidite..Ummm, I'm a woman. Lol, you called me a him, at least before you put out ignorance, pleae check to make sure you have your gender correct.

I think "sexy" wasn't the word you're looking for. We use "sexy" too much to describe things that are pleasing or good-looking. I think you were thinking of "beautiful," um... is there was word for "Not-something-that-should-be-hidden-in-a-restroom-in-shame?"

Unlike sexy pregnancy photos, it does look like we've walked in on our mother or aunt as she's breast feeding. We're about to walk around and take a glimpse at the baby (where is the baby?)

This is directed @ Moxieheart

The Jolie-Pitts are under no moral responsibility to completely alter their lifestyle because there are starving people in the world. They donate more than any celebrity I can think of, and we should be harping on the ones who donate NO time or money, not saying that the ones who donate time AND money aren't doing a good enough job because they like to enjoy what money they keep for themselves.

I agree with you on the flying for a hobby thing - in the oil crisis we currently have, that would be like buying a new pool in a drought, completely irresponsible. But the point remains that simply because Angelina and Brad are in the public spotlight does not mean that we have any right to tell then what to do with their money. Unless you fully plan on adopting and not bearing your own children, I think you are being a tad hypocritical.

Furthermore, I think they do have a very change-oriented attitude. correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they agreed to not marry until gays can marry. Also, I don't think any of the three biological children were planned. Not to mention, does Angie have the right to give birth to as many children as she wants? They don't deserve this flack coming from a group of feminists.

I think what Miriam is getting at is...a real, unapologetic representation of women and motherhood is what's sexy. Doing something risky in order to represent real women. That's what's sexy. And I say right on.

Gee, Angelina Jolie's breasts being considered "sexy." Now THAT's a radical idea if ever I heard one. /sarcasm

"It can be sexy"? Um...I always kind of thought the problem with the stigma of breastfeeding CAME from the fact that breasts are always considered sexual and therefore, not appropriate for public.

What? Sexy? Why does positive representation = sexy? What's so sexy about this photo? What's sexy about breastfeeding? Why has sexiness have to be the rubric for validating anything a woman does, including feeding her kid?

In short, what the hell, Feministing?!
Posted by Sandi

I think the fact that it's Angelina Jolie makes it sexy, IMO. Tastes vary, of course, but she could be doing her tax returns and I'd still get a boner.

Sex appeal is certainly relative to her line of work, being a movie star and all. The fact so many people find her sexy when she's doing an everyday activity (as opposed to raiding tombs or shooting baddies) says she has it by the truckload, even when compared to other movie stars.

I like to comment too that breast feeding isn't sexy...but the idea that she can make breast feeding not a private manner is pretty damn cool. I fell that much more in love with Angelina...sigh.

I love the photograph. And I like that breastfeeding is being portrayed positively.

But I don't like when people substitute the word "sexy" for "fine, natural, normal, beautiful, loving, daring, gutsy"--or basically any positive descriptor that could be applied to a woman or mother. Thus:

I think what Miriam is getting at is...a real, unapologetic representation of women and motherhood is what's sexy. Doing something risky in order to represent real women. That's what's sexy. And I say right on.

The fact that people, including the poster, use "sexy" as a replacement for those words when women are the subject irritates me no end.

I mean, remember for a moment what "sexy" means. It means, sexually appealing--making people want to have sex with you. It has to do with...SEX. When does breastfeeding a baby have anything to do with sex? That's pretty...wrong, actually. But you know what isn't wrong? Saying that breastfeeding your baby is gutsy, loving, etc. (see list above).

Why can't we just use those words? Why does it have to be SEXY to be okay?

Because we are judged by our sex appeal to men.

When a father lovingly feeds his child, we don't call it sexy. That would be...WEIRD. We call it loving and nurturing, because it is. Yet somehow not for a woman?

So yeah. Certainly no beef with the photograph. But definite beef with the interpretation.

Not to mention that an article based on a voyeur-like peek into Angelina Jolie's private life, as viewed by Brad Pitt, definitely bothers me on a few levels; but I'd want to read the whole article before I decided for sure.

@ laurel gardner: No one had even mentioned her breasts until your post. If your automatically equate sexy with breasts, that’s something you might want to examine that, but don’t presume the rest of us have the same take on what defines sexy.

As for the rest of your comment, seeing a breastfeeding woman as sexy and stigmatizing women that breastfeed in public are indeed two completely different acts and one doesn’t require the other to occur. I use the example I used earlier. Thinking that woman on the subway is super sexy is fine, cat-calling her or grabbing her ass as she walks by is not. And, we all know that you don’t have to be “sexy” to get cat-called or groped, so I’m fairly sure many of the folks would prefer to confine breastfeeding women to their homes find breastfeeding decidedly un-sexy. Besides, you cannot police people’s thoughts, you just can’t.

Perhaps Brad thinks his wife is sexy? Maybe that was the point? He took the pictures, didn't he?

This.

None of you are seriously going to sit there and say you think it would be wrong for someone watching the woman they love breastfeed their child to find that sexy? Because that seems like a perfectly natural response to me (and it has nothing to do with breasts). So then, isn’t it possible that because of who took the pictures (a person very much in love with her) and that the photo is shot from his point of view (not to mention the soft quality and black & white tones of the photo) that Brad Pitt indeed meant it to be sexy?

I want to reiterate that no one here has claimed that breastfeeding is always sexy or that all breastfeeding women should strive to be sexy. We’re just saying that breastfeeding can be sexy in certain circumstances (like say, to the partner of the breastfeeding woman). And, yes, we all mean sexy as in sexual. That doesn’t mean we all want to have sex with Angelina Jolie – this photo, due to the lighting, color, and context of the shot, just elicits that response from some people (and not from others).

There is nothing wrong with finding this photo sexy as long as you don’t use that as an excuse to marginalized, stigmatize, or ostracize women that breastfeed in public.

Again, I very much doubt those that want to ban public breastfeeding find it sexy themselves, they are just worried that others might. They feel they are the “moral police,” so to speak.

When a father lovingly feeds his child, we don't call it sexy. That would be...WEIRD.

No, you would call it weird. The thought of my husband feeding our baby, raising and nurturing our child is very sexy to me feels completely natural to me.

Hey, childfree_feminist, I actually thought your comment was funny. Rather than seeing it as some kind of comment putting down women who choose to have children I saw it as a joke reflecting your (and my) strong desire not to. Not everybody sees breast feeding and thinks "how beautiful". I still think people should be allowed to breast feed whenever and wherever they want but it isn't any more beautiful a site to me than many other physical/biological actions. Plus, there is so much pressure thanks to the media now for new mothers and pregnant women to look sexy and fashionable that I really don't want to see breast feeding "sexified" as well. I have no problem with this cover and it is probably a good thing over all, but lets not applaud making breast feeding "sexy".

For the last time people,
NO ONE IS SAYING ALL BREASTFEEDING WOMEN ARE SEXY.
NO ONE IS SAYING THEY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH ALL BREASTFEEDING WOMEN.
NO ONE IS SAYING BREASTFEEDING WOMEN SHOULD STRIVE TO BE SEXY.
Good lord!

Some of you seem to think that we are using sexy as a synonym for beautiful or pretty and, while it’s a perfectly legitimate definition of sexy IMO, we are not using it in this manner.

Some of you seem to think that sexy only means that you want to engage in a sexual act with the person, it doesn’t. It can mean that, but it also means something has elicited a sexual response (either mentally or physically). We are human beings; we are not lead by our libidos. We are perfectly capable of having sexual thoughts or responses without wanting to engage the act of sex. Separating thoughts from acts is one of the things that make humans so complex and interesting and differntiates us from other animals.

It’s also why so many of you are having trouble articulating why thinking breastfeeding can be sexy links to banning breastfeeding in public. It’s difficult to directly connect the two because one doesn’t not predicate to the other.

If you walk by a woman breastfeeding in the park and you think “Wow, that’s sexy” and then proceed to chastise the woman for breastfeeding public or ask an authority figure to tell her to cover up or leave, that is wrong and harmful .

OR (and this is the more likely scenario)

If you walk by a woman breastfeeding in the park and you think “Someone might find this sexy and that woman knows it” and then proceed to chastise the woman for breastfeeding public or ask an authority figure to tell her to cover up or leave, that is wrong and harmful.

But, please, please explain how walking by woman breastfeeding in the park and thinking “Wow, that’s sexy” as you pass and then going about your day is wrong or harmful in any way? I’ll be damned if I can.

We are all on the same side here. We all believe (or I assume we all do) that there is absolutely nothing wrong with breastfeeding in public. Whether you find breastfeeding sexy sometimes or never at all, it doesn’t really matter if we all believe women should be allowed to breastfeed whenever and wherever.

Hey, childfree_feminist, I actually thought your comment was funny

Yes, referring to a woman’s breast as at “teat” is just HI-larious and does so much to advance the rights of women who choose to breastfeed.

I had to create an account just so I could tell you people you're all missing the point! ;) j/k Does it irk no one else that this couple never misses an opportunity to include their children in their own publicity/promotion? I realize they can't prevent pictures being taken of their children, but why are they constantly involving them in photo shoots, particularly when the photo shoot is to promote a movie? I realize that some are going to immediately come to their defense that "they have no choice!" but no one had a picture of her for the past couple of months, she seems to be able to manage if she doesn't want the photos taken. And even then, she's promoting The Changeling, what does that have to do with her children? I do think it's great that there is such a positive representation of breastfeeding in the mainstream media, but the situation just doesn't sit well with me. Plus, I wonder if it would be such a positive representation if the woman didn't fit into the standard definition of attractive. Would people be as accepting if she had visible stretch marks? Sagging?

Plus, I wonder if it would be such a positive representation if the woman didn't fit into the standard definition of attractive. Would people be as accepting if she had visible stretch marks? Sagging?

I assume you aren't directing this at the Feministing readers, because I'm sure you'd just hear a resounding "Yes! It would be a positive message." As for the rest of the world, sadly I'd have to say "no."

The question here is not about whether or not "sexy" is a good thing. The question here is whether or not it's okay to always consider breastfeeding sexual or to judge it by the standards of sexy.

People expect Angelina Jolie to be photographed in a racy, sexy manner for magazines and largely aren't going to raise a fuss because that's expected and accepted as her role. However, the average breastfeeding woman in public, who DOESN'T look like a mega-hot movie star, is generally going to get a lot of crap from people who don't want to think about her in a sexual manner, or to come upon any woman in a public place making what they consider to be a display of sex organs. This is BECAUSE we associate sex, and only sex, with all appearances of naked breasts.

In short: I don't care if you think Angie's breastfeeding pictures are sexy. That's fine. But boobies have other purposes, kay? And praising pictures of a breastfeeding sex symbol for being sexy is hardly progressive from this point of view.

I think the main problem here is that the comment reads to most people as breastfeeding isn't something that normal people have to be scared off because it's sexy. But so that way it seems as though if it didn't look sexy than it should be hidden behind closed doors. Now I'm not saying that's the way that Miriam meant it when she put it that way, but that's the way it reads to me and (apparently) to most other people. Breastfeeding doesn't have to be sexy to be considered acceptable.

@ laurel gardner: What part of this don’t you under stand:
NO ONE IS SAYING ALL BREASTFEEDING WOMEN ARE SEXY.
NO ONE IS SAYING THEY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH ALL OR ANY BREASTFEEDING WOMEN.
NO ONE IS SAYING BREASTFEEDING WOMEN SHOULD STRIVE TO BE SEXY.

If you don’t ever find breastfeeding sexy, that’s fine, but it does not mean that there is something wrong with those of us that sometimes do.

People aren’t outrage over breastfeeding because they find it sexy, they are outraged because they are worried someone else might find it sexy. They believe that a woman breastfeeding will turn someone on and to them that is perverted – so, by proxy, the woman breastfeeding in public is committing a perverted act and it’s their job to shame her for it.

If there are people that want to ban public breastfeeding because they are sexually aroused by it, they obviously have some mental issues because that isn’t normal (for lack of a better word) behavior.

That has nothing to do with some people sometimes finding breastfeeding sexy and everything to do with our society’s fucked up view that we must control other’s sexuality because they aren’t capable of handling it themselves. The people wanting to ban public breastfeeding never find breastfeeding sexy but are worried others will. You people never find breastfeeding sexy are worried that those of us that do are going to ban public breastfeeding. It’s just two sides of the same coin.

Women should be allowed to breastfeed wherever and whenever they’d like, whether some somewhere finds them sexy or not. Policing people’s thoughts because you think they should believe what you do doesn’t work and it’s why breastfeeding women have to fight for their rights every day.

It's the manipulation, policing, and stigmatizing of thoughts that lead to discrimination and oppression, not the thoughts themselves.

But boobies have other purposes, kay?

Again, you are the only one bring up breasts and "boobies", kay? And, if you think that's what this discussion is about, that's your issue, stop projecting it on everyone else.

No. Breastfeeding is functional, not sexy.
Breastfeeding has nothing to do with sex. At all.
I'm really alarmed that feministing would say breastfeeding is sexy or link breastfeeding with sex in any way.

Booooo!

Oh, for fuck’s sake, people. This has gotten way out of hand.

It’s not the fact that the act of breastfeeding is or should be sexy. It’s the context, texture, nature, and color of the photo – this woman in this photo is sexy and she is breastfeeding. Maybe Miriam shouldn’t have stated as such because it may be construed by non-regulars as implying that breastfeeding must be sexy to be accepted (though the regular readers here should know that that isn’t what Miriam meant). Constructive criticism of her wording and/or noting that she may not have noticed this during editing is completely appropriate.

What is not appropriate is the criticizing of the people that also found the photo sexy that’s being done here. Implying their reaction to the photo furthers the discrimination of public breastfeeding is unreasonable. And, implying that their reaction is because they automatically associate breasts with sex is just bizarre, any number of factors can elicit a sexual response, it’s not exclusive to naked flesh or even physicality.

If you have a problem with the way Miriam worded her comments, fine, but don’t fucking presume to tell others what they can and cannot find sexy. I really don’t know how to make it any clearer.

"Again, you are the only one bring up breasts and "boobies", kay? And, if you think that's what this discussion is about, that's your issue, stop projecting it on everyone else."

WTF? It's a logical stretch to associate breastfeeding and...breasts? What on earth are you talking about?

"@ laurel gardner: What part of this don’t you under stand:
NO ONE IS SAYING ALL BREASTFEEDING WOMEN ARE SEXY.
NO ONE IS SAYING THEY WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH ALL OR ANY BREASTFEEDING WOMEN.
NO ONE IS SAYING BREASTFEEDING WOMEN SHOULD STRIVE TO BE SEXY.

If you don’t ever find breastfeeding sexy, that’s fine, but it does not mean that there is something wrong with those of us that sometimes do. "

Shelby, kindly calm the everloving crap DOWN, already! Also, kindly re-read my post and look for the part where I said, "I don't care if you think Angie's breastfeeding pictures are sexy. That's fine."

What I am saying is that Miriam is representing this photo shoot as something which is going to help improve public perceptions of breastfeeding because it's portrayed as "sexy," and I argue that this isn't going to help anyone. I doubt it's going to *hurt* the problem, but the idea of "breastfeeding can be sexy" isn't exactly going to help with the problem of breastfeeding always being considered sexual. I don't care what people think of sexy Angie (I sure as hell think this photo is smoking hot), I care that people on this site perceive the breastfeeding stigma accurately.

Jesus.

Shelby, kindly calm the everloving crap DOWN, already!

I am calm, but thank you so much for your faux concern. This is the FIRST comment of yours that even mentions Miriam's name or how she worded her post. If that's your beef with post, then you should have made that clear.

Instead, you went on a rant about how perceiving Jolie as sexy was harmful to breastfeeding women. You also felt that you knew the exact nature of what we found sexy (never mind that more than one of us articulated that for ourselves) which was completely off base for some of us and incredibly insulting.

You went on and on about how Jolie is a sex symbol and that other women can’t live up to that standard, blah, blah right after making the sarcastic “yes Jolie’s breasts are sexy, what a surprise” comment without ONCE mentioning the wording of the post and yet you are surprised that I thought you were criticizing me (and the others). In your second comment, you, again, did not mention the wording of the post, went on your rant, said “but, if you find it sexy, that’s fine” then closed with a reminder to all of us that “boobies” are for more than just sex. Pardon me if I thought your “That’s fine” comment wasn’t made in good faith. You were accusatory and assumptive and that’s what I responded to.

I realize that you may not have noticed that you failed to point out your criticism was of the post and not of the people who perceived the photo as sexy, so if you would like to amend your original and subsequent posts to reflect your actual intentions, I’d be happy to retract my comments toward you.

Otherwise, I think I’ve made my point more than clear unless one is choosing to assign a different meaning to my words.

I think it's a beautiful photo and I would think so even if it wasn't one the world's, so called, 'sexiest women'.

I applaud the photo, despite what some breast-feeding-phobics in the world may think. It's a beautiful, bonding, and natural moment between mother and child.

Thanks for sharing, though I agree the wording choice 'sexy' was a mis-step.

The Jolie-Pitts are under no moral responsibility to completely alter their lifestyle because there are starving people in the world. They donate more than any celebrity I can think of, and we should be harping on the ones who donate NO time or money, not saying that the ones who donate time AND money aren't doing a good enough job because they like to enjoy what money they keep for themselves.
They can do what they want with their money, but I'm rather sick of all the attention they get for what they do (Which they really can't control, but it's still annoying), while still being completley hypocritical. They are using so much resources, while there are people like me who's showers are dribbling and are using recycled t.p. because we acknowledge that there are finite resources. And that children just like Maddox and Zahara and Pax sew Angie's Chloe boots. No celebrity should be compelled to give, but you shouldn't talk the talk if you can't walk the walk. Plus, there's Brad's unsavory association with Jeffrey Sachs, the brains behind the economic messes in Bolivia and Russia. Thousands have been killed implementing Sachs' economic plans in Africa and Asia, but Brad calls this man his professor.
I agree with you on the flying for a hobby thing - in the oil crisis we currently have, that would be like buying a new pool in a drought, completely irresponsible. But the point remains that simply because Angelina and Brad are in the public spotlight does not mean that we have any right to tell then what to do with their money. Unless you fully plan on adopting and not bearing your own children, I think you are being a tad hypocritical.
Actually, thanks for asking, I'm NOT reproducing. Aside from the bad genetics I have, I think it's selfish to reproduce in the world as it is. Their family is like half a Duggar family.
Furthermore, I think they do have a very change-oriented attitude. correct me if I'm wrong, but I think they agreed to not marry until gays can marry. Also, I don't think any of the three biological children were planned. Not to mention, does Angie have the right to give birth to as many children as she wants? They don't deserve this flack coming from a group of feminists.
They made the gay marriage statement when they were being ripped apart in the tabloids (Tabloids are my unfeminist pleasure.) Call me cynical, but it seemed like a ploy to get the heat off of themselves.
Sure, Angie can have 10 children if she wants, but breeding is a right AND a responsibility. For every person who lives there are creatures that have to die to support them. It seems cold, but if people thought like this then maybe we wouldn't be in the population/climate crisis that we're in now. And you can't tell me that Angie and Brad don't have access to contraceptives.

I forgot to add, I agree with Somerset how irksome it is how their children are involved with the publicity etc. for their movies. Shiloh's in one of Brad's recent movies, I think it's The Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons or The Assasination of Jesse James. How messed-up is that? She was a toddler and couldn't even choose.

woooooow... I'm going with ShelbyWoo here; this seems like so very much over so very little. Ya'll seem like you're looking for a reason to freak out... I also agree with RevolutionarilySpeaking that it seems a bit ridiculous to hold these people up to some strict standard just because they do a lot of good things with the gobs of money they have. I mean, isn't that just playing into the whole ridiculous media obsession with their personal lives? I don't really care what they do in their own time, especially when they are doing so many good things that will arguably have a *far* greater impact than any personal choices they make. And telling a woman what she should or should not do with her body is icky in any circumstance... saying she shouldn't have kids just because she advocates for poor children creeped me out.

I can't comment, really, on the choice of the word sexy. I'm not surprised our community noticed it though, as language has very powerful connotations.

What I can say is that, last I checked, female breasts are technically sex organs. Babies tend (heh) to happen from sex and the female breasts are the sex organ that feeds them. So, Waverly (yes, I'm talking to you), breastfeeding has EVERYTHING to do with sex.

Just saying...

Female breasts are not sex organs. They have nothing to do with the reproductive system. Western society has fetishized them (which isn't inherently good or bad) but I really don't think it's necessary to describe a picture of a breastfeeding woman as "sexy" - beautiful, natural, empowering yes. Sexy? No thanks.

Yes, actually they are. Breasts do not produce milk unless (other than rare cases) said woman is pregnant or has been pregnant. Male breasts can produce milk but only if under unusual and rare circumstances of the pituitary gland. Like I said earlier, this has nothing to do with the choice of the word "sexy" but the fact the breastfeeding is integral to sex.

Miriam, I hope you can offer some thoughts on your original post!

LaurelGardner: "What I am saying is that Miriam is representing this photo shoot as something which is going to help improve public perceptions of breastfeeding because it's portrayed as "sexy," and I argue that this isn't going to help anyone. I doubt it's going to *hurt* the problem, but the idea of "breastfeeding can be sexy" isn't exactly going to help with the problem of breastfeeding always being considered sexual."

This sums up my own feelings on the subject. I see it somewhat as I do the idea of "women politicans CAN be sexy!" and "Black male scientists are COOL!" These types of campaigns invoke, on my part, an initial, wry "LOL, ya think?" and then a sigh of displeasure that the world is ever the same as it has been. Sexy women and cool Black dudes...don't step too far out of the box now, you hear?

This is a context issue.

It's the same issue we had here when some people felt that protraying female Olympians as sexed-up beyone their own usual aethetics (as many mags and TV shows did) was great because "it shows the world that female Olympians CAN be sexy!". Then there were the others (like me) who argued that it was NOT helpful to women in general or to the Olympians because throughout history, women have been limited to their sexuality and we'd like a shot at something beyond our traditional "box," thanks very much.

And we are again with the same "killing us through context" issue. Throughout Western history, have *primarily* been represented in reproductive terms--whether actually mother-related or in f***ability. So, in that reproductive sense, Jolie's cover shot's really not all that transgressive (and I think most of us here can agree with the idea that it is a useful thing to try to transgress the small boxes laid out for us and to be represented as sexual, YES, but also clever, skillful, musical, athletic, professional, powerful, rational, and so forth).

Next, we have the specific context of the U.S., in which women's breasts are indeed sexualized far beyond the views of some other societies. In this country, we also have a strong public opinion that discourages women from breastfeeding in public, even when covered, largely because of this association of the breast with sex and sex as not for public consumption (note the divorcing of bared midriffs from this discussion--remember in the 50s, when a bared navel was almost equivalent to a bared vulva?)

So, adding it all up:

--"See? Breastfeeding CAN be sexy!" is not healthily transgressive of the historical Sexy Box
--It is an implicit endorsement of the status quo view that breastfeeding is an act that is sexually arousing (yes, that's what "sexy means"). To ShelbyWoo's point, merely pointing out that this endorsement of the status quo is not a "thought police" type of excercise, IMO.

I'm not saying that people CAN'T or SHOULDN'T find breastfeeding sexy. I'm saying, rather, that we don't need to contribute to the already-prevailing majority view that it is NECESSARILY AND ALWAYS SEXY.

FailPolish, I see your point (although I'd reverse your last sentence to read "sex is integral to breastfeeding").

But I think it's possible that the public, in its vociferous denunciations of public breastfeeding, are not objecting to the fact that sex played a role in getting the milk into the mother's breast. If that were the case, the public at large would object to visibly pregnant women walking about with their distended bellies covered only by a thin cotton summer dress or a small tee. People know that sex was what got that belly so distended, and in that sense, "sex is integral to pregnant bellies" should have equal potential to get observers hot and bothered, yes?

But it doesn't get people hot and bothered.

What bothers them is the discrete (LOL, not discreet!) act of a breast in the mouth of an infant, in a public space. So, something about either the sight of that breast or the act of suckling (or a combination of both) is what gives rise to the public panic over breastfeeding. Our job is to parse out what that is and work on it, to get rid of some of these perceptions. (Or if you don't want that job, I'll gladly take it on).

I had commenting problems before, so...

I posted on my blog

@hardCandy: As a side note on another feminist site a commentor said something to the effect that breastfeeding is some how a tool of the patriarchy because it supports the idea that women should stay home and not work, it also supports the idea that women should put their families before themselves and denies women their own bodies.

Sometimes the pressure from pro-breastfeeding groups like La Leche League and from feminist blogs and even from complete strangers on the street to breastfeed or OMG YOUR BABY WILL GROW UP TO BE A SERIAL KILLER !!!ELEVEN!! feels like a denial of women's agency and our right to control our own bodies. When it gets hard to tell the difference between patriarchy and feminism, feminism is doing something wrong.

"Yuk! Spawnling sucking at mother's teat. Yes, I'm childfree for a reason (actually MANY reasons)."

I also agree. The act of using your body like a 7/eleven simply grosses me out!Another childfree sister here!However, those that arent childfree will completely distort the meaning of our posts.

And yes tealy, I was breastfed for 9 months by my mother (even while she worked - and this was in 1984).

I agree with frumiousB that pressuring women is never good. However, there is a difference between pressuring and providing accurate health information so that women can make a truly informed choice. If you don't know of the risks to the baby and the mother of suppressing lactation after a pregnancy, you can't really make the right choice for you. For some mothers and babies, the technology of formula and bottles are lifesaving; for others, they result in health risks such as breast cancer for the mother and a variety of illnesses for the baby. This is not a moral issue or lifestyle issue; it is a health care issue. Mothers have the right to accurate information free from judgment, slogans, pressure, patronizing, and agendas.

I believe that as mothers have a right to make a decision about continuing a pregnancy, they also have a right to decide how to feed their babies. But with this right comes the responsibility of reviewing accurate information and making the best choice that you are able to with the resources you have. In my experience, La Leche League is in the business of providing accurate information and support to mothers who wish to breastfeed.

Pressuring would be something like "breastfeed or your baby will DIE!!!" Accurate information would be: According to a review of 9000 studies (found here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgirid=hstat1b.section.106788 ),babies who are formula fed are twice as likely to die of SIDS than babies who are breastfed, and there is a dose-response trend with more formula feeding causing greater risk of SIDS. Mothers deserve to know this, and if they choose to formula feed anyway, they deserve the respect of people assuming that they had a good reason that is none of anyone's business.

Kind of a thread jack but,

*Technically* the definition of sex organs means those body parts specifically required for sexual reproduction.

It helps to think of assisted REPRODUCTIVE technologies, such as in vitro fertilization. Docs hormonally manipulate the ovaries, harvest eggs, ensure the uterus can support the embryo, etc.

But note that there is no specific hormonal treatment for the breast tissue and nothing is harvested from breasts as part of this procedure.

Yes, breasts are integral in providing nutrition for the baby, but we do not classify the feeding one's young as part of sexual reproduction (sex). And thus breast are technically considered secondary sex characteristics and not sex organs, although sometimes they are mislabeled as such.

And telling a woman what she should or should not do with her body is icky in any circumstance... saying she shouldn't have kids just because she advocates for poor children creeped me out.
Where in my post did I say that she shouldn't have babies? She can have as many as she wants, I just wish that people would think of the consequences of reproducing.
Will it creep you out when the population reaches 7 billion or 8 billion? Will it creep you out if the global warming forecasts are correct and people living in coastal regions have to migrate? These issues overwhelmingly affect poor people of color, but as long as having babies makes your heart feel fuzzy, then by all means continue. Btw, I *don't* support government instituted birth limits, but we all should consider these issues before we breed.

I think by sexy, they mean attractive, not necessarily "sexy". Despite the well known, "breast is best" motto, breastfeeding is still relatively rare among infant mothers. I attend a mother's group with other women who had home births and even they are considering calling it quits after 4 months. Most of them are already supplementing with formula and refer to me as some sort of wonder woman for exclusively breastfeeding. Props to feministing and Angelina Jolie for bringing more attention to breastfeeding as a beautiful thing, not an inconvenience.

I think Sandi made an excellent point.

I don't see why something completely natural has to be sexy to be ok. The problem is that the breast overly sexualized when it doesn't always serve a sexual function. This is why women aren't allowed to be topless in settings when men can be (on the beach, etc). A woman's breast is either a sexual plaything or a lewd scandal? No, it is a sexual body part, is a functioning way to give nourishment to your baby, it can also be a completely asexual unclothed body part, all these things, and more.

I personally have a problem with sexualizing breast feeding. That would mean that there is something inherently sexual in the bond between mother & child that occurs during, or that the act itself is a sex act. Since I think Freud was an obsessive, sexist, arrogant jerk, I can't buy into that sort of thing and find the idea rather disturbing. I also don't think pregnant women need to be sexualized any more either. Can't they just be beautiful givers of life? Is that not enough!?

Yes, Angelina Jolie is a stunning woman. Yes, it's totally cool that she breast feeds. But is it only cool that she breast feeds because she's a stunning woman? Is it still not ok for ugly women to breast feed? I mean, WTF?

I'm going to advocate for an alternative word to "sexy", to describe a person who is in her own skin and loving it, as Angelina is in this photo sure, it could be the oxycotin talking.

I was overjoyed to see this cover. I don't care if it's sexy or not, this cover portrays breast feeding exactly as it should be: natural and acceptable and really no big deal. I'm breast feeding my son and have no qualms about feeding him when he needs to eat, regardless of where we are. If people have a problem with it, it is *their* problem and not mine.

When I look at this picture, I see a reflection of my family: a happy, tired mom who just wants what's best for her kids viewed through the eyes of an adoring father. Part of what makes this photo so beautiful is how *ordinary* it is. I Love it.