Does Angelina Jolie's role as a sex symbol mean she shouldn't breastfeed her babies? Or if she does continue, does it mean she shouldn't go publishing pictures of herself doing it? Does she owe her public the fantasy that those boobs belong to them, not her hungry little son and daughter?
Seems there's a bit of controversy in the splashy "W" magazine cover shots of her.
From Reuters:
... But while breast-feeding support groups and moms celebrated Jolie's
public statement, one expert said the picture felt like voyeurism,
especially given Jolie's sex symbol status in movies like "Wanted" and
"Lara Croft: Tomb Raider".
"The response from moms we have seen is that if someone as popular,
beautiful and together as Angelina is breast-feeding her children, it
inspires other women to do so themselves," said Dr Shannon Fox, a
psychotherapist with the www.Momlogic.com website.
Little is seen in the picture of the act of breast-feeding. It shows
Jolie smiling, while a tiny hand is just visible at bottom of the frame.
But Fox said the cover photo sends a second message.
"The problem is that she is also an international sex symbol. So
whether or not she says 'This is a beautiful way of nurturing my baby',
every man who sees that photo will see those breasts as sexual."
Really? Guys, is this true? Does this photo of Jolie contradict all the arguments that breastfeeding isn't a sex act, rather the world's easiest breakfast/lunch/dinner/snack? I feel like if she was pouting and doing that heavy-eyelid thing she does in every other photo of her, there'd be a mixed message. But she looks happy. Happy and content and like every other woman whose partner said "smile for the camera, sweetie!"
Related Posts
Angelina Buys Her Kid a Knife. What's Next, Maddox Jolie, Tomb Raider?
Angelina Jolie Breastfeeding Photo HERE!
Photo: W magazine