Extended bf pic

[VictorianSqualor]

Don't know if this has been linked before but isn't the picture in this article lovely?

It IS deliberately provocative. She IS making a statement. Those who argue it isnt simply don't know the Dutch mentality and media.
It Is meant to provoke debate and it has.

actually I am not sure it is a bed, if it is it is FECKING enormous.
and I can't see what is "overtly sexual" about it.
but I suppose that is necessarily subjective.
I really cannot equate "bf two children" with "overtly sexual" - does not compute, tbh.

I asked dp for an opinion and it seems he doesn't have one.
I got a shrug and 'yeah what she's breastfeeding?'

I would concede, though, that it is provocative.
viz: this thread!

Just asked ds1 what he thought about it and he said he thinks it glamourises bfing when it should just be normal and ordinary.(he's 17 almost)

Asked DH and he liked it,didn't think it was a sexual particuarly.

Yes harpsi.
It certainly did what she wanted it to if that was to raise awareness of Ex.BF.
For those who said they didn't think it did any good and possibly made it worse, I think that's untrue, I don't remember reading a comment complaining about what she is doing, just the way the photograph is posed which says something IMO.

Here is one of our local(ish) groups, picturing a normal tandem feeding mum, upright with her kids

I LOVE this picture

here

VVVQ - I think all of this began with this post of yours:
"
I think I'll go as far as saying that if you feel a dislike (note I said dislike and not indifference) for this picture of a mother and her children, then you are either very prudish, or have hang-ups about your own bodies. I really really do. I can't see any 'normal' reason for not liking it."

Which was both personal-attacky, and misguided, imo. PW's response was an ironic 'in the style of' one, mimicking of the one I quote above.

I dislike this image, for the same reasons that others do - it is an image which objectifies the subject - but as a USP - hey! she's breastfeeding! Two kids! And they're OLD!

Fundamentally it is an image of a woman, looking like women have to in our world, in order to get photographed (unless third-world/underclass). Which is appealing.

Doesn't matter if they appeal to men or women, imo. I think it's very hard not to be co-opted by this - we are so used to this photographic 'language' being the one which pictures women.

TBH, though, your rather insulting assessment of what motivates women to object to this image (prudish, with hang-ups) is quite as bad as those about ebf (ugly, lentil-weavery) which you say the image confronts.

Don't want to shock but I too a gorgeous when feeding my kid....

[hhhmmmmmmm ]

Yes OBM, but I dont see anywhere where PW said she disliked the picture. So, why would she feel offronted by anything I had to say? So how on earth can it be "personal-attacky"?

I thought you were all talking about a picnic until I just clicked to see when it was.

I think she needs a think puddle.. er.. bubble.. saying "Hey! Look at me! I am a sexy woman who is breast feeding my kids for ages! DARE to comment!"

PMSL at "seven years tandem chest" in the translation of the origonal link

agree with priceyp - the photo is about her. There is zero connection with the kids which made me wonder whether they were hers?

she dislikes the image vvvqv. I think that's quite clear. She's being reasonable about it ("if it's one of several, then fine" or something like it), but she dislikes it.

Therefore she is offended by your assessment of what motivates her to dislike it.

And, even if PW didn't dislike it, you are still shutting down discussion, by saying that the only possible reason to object is if you are prudish/have hang-ups about your own body.

Which does you (or any of us) no favours.

And it takes three people to put policywonks possible feelings/opinions across because.......

It's not as if she isn't perfectly able to do so herself is it Ladies?

she is perfectly capable of expressing herself, I'm quite sure.
Others are also perfectly capable of spotting flaws in VVVQV;s arguemnt, and to call her on her unpleasant and unthought-through assumptions - which they are perfectly entitled to do on their own behalf. As I just did.

I didnt say object, I said dislike. I also added a caveat that I strictly meant dislike.

And I dont think I'm wrong in saying that PW actually said she didnt object to it. So, if you are going to speak on her behalf, at least clarify what she said first.

Of course, and it's nothing to do with being friendly outside of MN at all.

I'm not speaking on her behalf - I'm just pointing out that you can't speak on her behalf, vvvqv.

object/dislike - you are being disingenuous. You have attacked people who don't feel enthusiastic about this image by saying that they have hangups about their bodies or are prudish.

Any unpleasant and unthought through assumptions you presume me to have, are no more than an antidote to the opposing opinions put forward here (and on the link) about extended or tandem feeding and this womans supposed motives and feelings at the point of photograph.

Someone I asked has said about the picture (first one in this thread)

"If anti breastfeeding people saw that picture put forward as a 'positive' image it just serves their point, IMO, that women that want to breast feed in public are somehow a bit slutty or exhibitionist. I don't think it's a fair representation of how many breastfeeding women want to be thought of, or how they breastfeed their kids"

I think I agree.

I havent, and never have spoken on her behalf. I'm not sure where you get that idea from.

However, I cant say the same for you.

You keep putting forward things that we have both supposedly said, and so far, little has been correct. Please do go off and read it again before you continue your attempts to sleight me for disagreeing with PW who actually said she quite liked to see the picture of extended/tandem b/feeding. As did I, IIRC>

Ho hum.