It’s just too obvious for a breastfeeding clothing range like us to write about ‘that’ Time Magazine cover in the US  (why not the European version, where frankly society is considerably more advanced in accepting breastfeeding? Or perhaps that’s why they didn’t bother. Discuss). But on the other hand, NOT blogging about it would make it look like I’d had my head in the sandpit too long this week. So from a marketing person’s perspective, I do empathise with the LA Time’s POV that the cover ‘proves that print doesn’t need to throw up the white flag and hand victory to digital forces’. But tempting as it is to ignore the subject matter to talk about the business case for print, it’s worth asking if the ‘shock value’ of the cover is doing what breastfeeding advocates want it to. The fact it’s a foxy mum with an older MALE child suggests there’s more than a little titillation value (apologies for the pun) involved in choosing that image. This makes one wonder if it’s going for a sympathetic reaction or an ‘oh my God’ reaction most likely to emit from the ignorant and prudish. Let’s hope the debate it provokes about breastfeeding is positive and encouraging, not positioned as a quirky ‘new age’ trend, like the Dukan diet. I fear with the US’s track record on the subject of breastfeeding, this is not going to herald a Brave New World where – SHOCK – women can feed on the bus without getting thrown off…..

Now that’s really shocking.

Aftershock: 'that' Time Mag cover