Disturbing Sexual Content

Hysterical, bordering-on-insane American puritans flooded this magazine's inbox with emails decrying the "disgusting" nature of the magazine's choice of cover photos. One woman said she immediately put it face down on her coffee table when her son came home from school, her reason: "The breast is a sexual thing. My son doesn't need to see that." She should be put in the same looney bin with the woman who called the nude scene in The Titanic "filthy" and "disgusting". Where DO these people get their ideas?

Recently, a performance "artist" (I HATE most performance art) in Canada staged an exhibition in Toronto, I think, which offered paying audience members a taste of breast milk. I think this is the most asinine excuse for art since the woman who took photographs of rabbits (all dead) in various stages of decomposition. How disturbing is this? (All the more so because much of this "art" is funded by public grant money. Sheesh.) The breast milk artist said the reason she did it was to demystify the topic of breastfeeding and breastmilk. She said people still feel uncomfortable when mothers breastfeed in public, even though most have the sense of modesty to do it discreetly. i thought, at the time, what a load of bollocks. Why should people feel uncomfortable with breast feeding? Apparently I am not plugged in the puritan American mindset, though. Wow. Who would have thought?