Boobies, Titties, Tatas, or Breasts

I bet that title piqued the interests of my readers of the male persuasion...
Sorry folks, this post has to do with boobs, but not in that good Las Vegas way...as my husband would say. No, this is a rant. I saw on Yahoo today an article about the uproar over the latest issue of Babytalk magazine. The more I read the more I was disgusted. Apparently the readers of the magazine, which by the way is geared towards new moms, have their panties in a wad because pictured on the cover is a baby...a baby attached to a...God forbid...a BOOB!!!! Oh the humanity! In some of the letters received by the magazine readers wrote of feeling "embarrassed" or "offended" by the sight of such horror! Come on! It's 2006 and babies have been attached to tits since before Christ. Get over yourselves people!! Why is it that breasts pictured in a sexual nature are considered ok, but put a baby near one and you're likely to start a riot? It doesn't make sense. From reading this so far you might assume that I'm the Breastfeeding Nazi. Far from true. I tried and failed at breastfeeding and I was not embarrassed or ashamed of feeding Geof formula...it was either that or having my child die of starvation. Easy choice. Ok, I'm getting off point here...I'm just trying to understand why people are so uncomfortable with seeing a nursing baby. If you ask me the picture was very tasteful and beautifully done. The focus was on the baby and not the boob, and that's how it should be. Here's the link if you would like to read the article yourself.