Accidental Blogger

Last Wednesday, the front page story in the Houston Chronicle was about the high levels of pollution in the waters off the Gulf of Mexico and Galveston Bay. This is not entirely a new story. Alarms and warnings are sounded every summer regarding the quality of fish, oysters and other edible sea creatures harvested from the contaminated bay.  The report caused considerable furore among some Chronicle readers – not about the fish story but because of the picture accompanying the report which showed a very pregnant young woman in a bikini fishing in Galveston Bay. (She said that she does not eat the fish but releases her catch) Many Houstonians it seems, were appalled, ashamed and some lost their appetite at the breakfast table at the sight of the woman’s protruding belly. The Chronicle offices were reportedly inundated with emails and phone calls of protest from outraged readers.  The following day the Chronicle published an article by Nicki Britton explaining why there is no need to be queasy at the sight of a naked pregnant belly.

The story also, if unintentionally, included a lesson about how uncomfortable some people feel at the sight of a naked pregnant tummy. And as a mother, I’d like folks to quit their bellyaching.

The piece’s accompanying photograph — of a visibly pregnant woman dressed in a bikini and fishing in the waters home to the troublesome fish — generated dozens of e-mails and phone calls to the Chronicle’s reader representative.

The photo caption noted that the woman would be following her doctor’s advice and releasing the fish instead of eating them during her pregnancy. But to several people, apparently, the "Danger in the bay" referenced in the headline wasn’t a potentially carcinogenic fish but rather the ghastly possibility of seeing a pregnant woman wearing something other than a muumuu.

One e-mailer thought the newspaper was "scraping the bottom of the barrel" with the "naked pregnant abdomen." Another complained that the image of "a semi-nude, extremely pregnant woman … ruined my appetite for breakfast this morning."

One caller was "highly offended;" another "appalled." Someone likened the photo to what you’d find in a tabloid and called it "the most tasteless thing" he’d ever seen in a newspaper. Others called the picture "gross," "inappropriate" and "very tacky."

I read the piece that morning and didn’t give it another thought until I saw the daily report sent out by Steve Jetton, the paper’s reader representative. Jetton takes calls and e-mails (angry and otherwise) from readers. And he writes About.Chron, the blog addressing readers’ concerns about the paper.

These readers are entitled to their opinions, of course, and encouraged to provide feedback.

Still … appalled? Ruined breakfast?

It’s a picture of pregnant lady, swollen belly showing. It’s not obscene. Not suggestive. Not even immodest. The woman was photographed in profile — her arms are covering her bikini top, her bathing suit bottom is only visible from the side and her face is turned away from the camera. Additionally, she was shot from a distance; the details of her figure are barely visible.

Britton’s article in turn elicited more letters from readers expressing both anger and approval for the choice of the photo.  One annoyed reader had this to say:

Pregnancy is indeed a wonderful time, but it should be a private time. Using the toilet is a "natural" part of life, but I wonder if Britton would like to see a photo of me doing it on the front page of a major newspaper. It’s not obscene or suggestive, but it is not something everyone wants
to see.

Along those lines, how about a series of photos of sagging breasts, and cottage-cheese legs and behinds. Why is it that people look at these with disgust? They, too, are perfectly normal stages of the human body, so what on Earth would be offensive about them?

Like Britton, I too saw the photo, read the article and thought nothing of it. I was a bit concerned that a woman in such an advanced stage of pregnancy was standing ankle deep in water that may contain both organic and industrial contaminants. Although I am not particularly interested in seeing pictures of anyone using a toilet, I don’t think I would be disgusted by the sight of sagging breasts, cottage-cheese legs and behinds in a news clip or photo. Moreover, the woman on the front page of the newspaper is not using the toilet, doesn’t have unsightly breasts, legs or behind.  She is not doing anything repulsive or illegal. She is fishing and she is visibly pregnant. The sight of the enlarged midriff of a pregnant but otherwise healthy looking woman is hardly obscene (I have seen more hideous beer bellies on men on the beach).  So what is it that so upset some readers about the photo?  Pregnancy is indeed a private time but a pregnant belly, even when covered, is visible to the world unless of course we ask pregnant women to stay home or appear in public wearing tents. I suspect that more than the sight of her belly, the thought of what the woman had to do have done a few months back to get pregnant is what caused the prudish outrage.