Would the TIme Magazine cover be a problem here?

Everyone knows about the Time Magazine controversy that happened recently in the US - a mother was shown breastfeeding her very grown son, exposing some nudity and raising some questions about how much is exposure is too much exposure. A similar situation happened in Korea, where a magazine ad for cookies showed a breastfeeding baby, again showing a little too much.

As Cody and I got on the Tube one day in London, he happened to pick up a baby magazine left in a seat. It was a child raising magazine meant for a demographic with a much "richer" taste - these were the people who had the money to have some serious baby swag. As we looked through it and laughed at all the ridiculous stuff, we came upon an ad for breast-feeding which exploded our laugh meter - it was a lady dressed up in Audrey Hepburn's "Breakfast at Tiffany's" infamous outfit, yet where the breasts were, there were holes and a breastfeeding device attached. It was almost a little too much. But it also raises the question - how acceptable is nudity here in the UK? Where does the line get drawn? In light of all the grotesque ads that they use towards texting and driving, and smoking, it seems like the sort of "pushing the limit" advertising seems to grab audience attention. These sort of tactics may make a difference, but I feel this marketing approach - showing women that breast pumps are glamourous - doesn't make a difference. And I certainly wouldn't spend thousands of dollars for a breast pump.