jonathan turley

A long time ago I remember a friend of mine's husband was telling me why he didn't let his wife breastfeed their new baby. "Breasts are there for men's satisfaction, not for feeding a child. She's bottle-feeding". I was astonished at this, and see, I still remember him saying that. AS IF women's breasts had no natural purpose of feeding a child but only to please men. At the time, women had problems breastfeeding in public.

Now, mind you, I don't hold with women flashing their boobs at other people, but I like the idea that one can take a blanket or some other coverup and discreetly feed a baby, AS NATURE INTENDED. And if, at home, a woman wants to have a photo of her child breastfeeding, who in their right mind would claim that this picture is pornographic? Except possibly a man with a dirty mind.

I also have photos of myself as a child, in the tub, playing with some toys. Naturally, i was naked. At two. I have never in my life thought that my parents were trying to make pornography but simply taking pictures of their kid in the tub.

What's shameful about the article, above, is that the parents don't have their children back. Why the heck not???? Something seriously wrong with the authorities in this case.

Oh, Look Paul Cezanne was a pornographer!