This really irks me. British TV star and model Nicola McLean has made headlines in the UK with some of her recent comments on the purpose of her breasts.Nicola, who is married and has a three-year-old young son named Rocky, defended her choice to bottle-feed him by saying, "[My breasts are] a sexual thing for me – I don’t want Rocky sucking on them... after Rocky was feeding on them, I wouldn’t then be able to go and have sex with Tom and him be sexual with them. "
She goes on to say that because she was a "Page 3 girl" (similar to Calgary's "Sunshine Girl") for five or six years, she only sees her breasts as sexual. "I just didn’t like the thought of my child feeding off them."
Um... does anyone else find this incrediably disturbing? Let's not even get into the whole "nurturing your baby is what breasts are designed for" argument, cos that's just too easy. And I'll even leave out the "breastfeeding your child has proven health benefits to both the mother and child" argument. Let's just leave it at this: How about the fact that breasts can be both functional AND sexual? Why does Nicola think it has to be one or the other?
No comments:
Post a Comment