Posted on 05/10/2012 8:57:14 PM PDT by Steelfish
May 10, 2012 11:24am Time Cover Shows 3-Year-Old Breast-Feeding
This week's cover of Time Magazine shows a mother nursing her 3-year-old son.
Should a mom continue nursing her child even after he’s too big to be held in her arms? For mothers who practice what’s known as “attachment parenting,” the answer is an emphatic “yes” — and some are more than happy to demonstrate.
This week’s cover of Time Magazine shows Los Angeles mother Jamie Lynne Grumet nursing her 3-year-old son, who reaches her breast with the help of a chair.
“When you think of breast-feeding, you think of mothers holding their children, which was impossible with some of these older kids,” photographer Martin Schoeller said in a Time Magazine online story explaining the cover photo. “I liked the idea of having the kids standing up to underline the point that this was an uncommon situation.”
The cover story illustrated by the photo takes a look at the philosophy of attachment parenting today — which, in addition to extended breastfeeding, also promotes co-sleeping and using slings to “wear” infants — and its roots in the 1992 parenting guide, “The Baby Book” by Dr. Bill and Martha Sears.
Time also posted photos of other nursing mothers featured in its story, including Missouri mom Dionna Ford of Kansas City, Mo., shown here at right with her four-year-old and five-month-old children.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Just preparing the kid for a lifetime of sucking on the government teet.
Yeah, that is creepy as being a gov teat sucker.
I think kittens are weened at 6 weeks, guess I got breast milk for a few months, little brother did too, but at some point you gotta cut the teat feeding off.
That just don’t go on for 3 years without some weirdness in the mom’s mind. Something sexually bizarre or otherwise twisted and strange. And having it photographed and put on the cover a magazine, that is Obama-grade funk.
Just my humble opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.
You mean there’s going to be a Time or a Newsweek that does not have Obama on the cover? Amazing!!!
The cover is a blatant attempt to generate controversy. Nothing wrong with extended breast feeding. Something very wrong with the way the photo is posed, which frankly does sexualize nursing.
Well, yes and no. There is a boob in the picture, right?
Haven’t seen the picture but a lot of times breastfeeding photographs are presented in a way that makes them almost soft porn.
Breastfeeding is what God made breasts for. Taking pictures of breasts while a baby is breastfeeding isn’t really a necessity.
I imagine the article is trying to make an issue out of a 3 year old breastfeeding? Time needs to focus on their favorite guy, zero, and his udder (pun intended) failure as a leader.
Ping (pun intended also)
Midget porn?
At least two.
Out of respect for others and dignity for motherhood, women should be discrete when breastfeeding. I did it and no one would have know I was nursing in public. This woman is immoral, to use her child this way. To treat such an intimate act like a freak show is to remove dignity from both motherhood and nursing.
Here’s my Marxist rant again. It is right out of Marx—Read Brave New World. They make the word “mother” revolting. Marx wants women in the workplace and the raising of kids left to the State so they can shape the plastic mind. This is repulsive to both mothers, girls and offensive to boys and men. More of forcing hate and revulsion at human beings and nature.
Time is intentionally trying to create disgust for a beautiful concept of a mother nursing her baby. Friedan must be laughing in hell.
Signs of the times.
Well written!
you read my mind!
...course money talks!..at which case she would be using the kid for monetary gain in a posed position .... which could indeed be considered soft porn.
The nation is totally desensitized....or this would not have been published.
However the public outcry...no skin off her nose...she'll be going to the bank and it'll be forgotten.
LOL
It looks criminal to me. No breastfeeding child should ever reach an age that it will have a memory of the act.
Wow, I had only seen a head shot of that photo. I did not see the kid standing on a chair. That was so deliberately provacative. If you only look at the kid’ss face, he could be still 2. Seeing him standing there was a bit disturbing.
I see nothing wrong with breast feeding even in public, there is nothing sexual about it. However, sensationalizing it like this is ridiculous. I have wondered, historically, at what age children were weaned from breast feeding. I would assume that children would be weaned when they were capable of eating real food, which they obviously can at 3. What age do tribal people wean? Does anybody know?
Wrong on so many levels.
Primative woman would likely be pregnant again within two years. This seems unnatural. It would seem nature’s way to foster physical independence by the time the kid eats solid food, can feed himself and is independently mobile.
Humans are hard-wired to be raised by a clan of about 20. This gives them exposure to a variety of experience, skills and survival strategies. Such extended relationships would also provide insurance of survival.
This seems to stifle emotional development of the child. I predict and extremely rebellious teen as he tries to break free of Mom and become an independent adult. Either that, or he will be a dependent emotional cripple.
What next, portraying Bonobo incest for humans, as it is natural with one of mankind’s closest relatives.
I’ve heard that an in-law of mine did this to an even higher age. She is a very smart individual and wanted her children to have optimum brain development, based on the nutrition from human milk. Her kids have turned out fine.
I knew three families that practiced extended breast feeding.
All three families were downright weird about many things and extended breast feeding was just one of the symptoms.
How can that kid only be 3 ? He looks the size of a 9 or 10 year old.
This month’s Time magazine cover shows how bad taste has become mainstream and that it’s been that way for at least an entire generation.
Perfect!
Heck, I try it as often as possible and I’m errr retired.
Never too old.:^)
Average age of weaning in "traditional" societies is commonly claimed to be 4-5. But the range is enormous.
A lactating woman is considerably less likely to become pregnant, so breastfeeding is to some extent a natural contraceptive or way of spacing children.
Exactly! This is not a tender Mary Cassatt painting. TIME wreaks of desperation peddling copies of their irrelevant magazine using a misguided woman's boobs.
Nuff said!
That kid looks closer to four than three...as you can see; the photoshops are already popping up...this arrogant, self-indulgent mother has made that kid’s life a living hell...they just don’t know it yet.
Instead, because humans developed a taste for face to face “bonding,” the woman's breast mutated to imitate the buttocks which swell, attracting male attentions, in all female primates when in estrus.
Natural Selection made the female breast a sexual enticement in order to add to the woman's physical attractiveness because lasting pair bonding in a species where young are long developing is vital.
So according to Anthropology 101, female breasts are both functional (though very large mammaries can obstruct infant breathing) and sexual by nature...and Time is obviously exploiting the latter.
Now that the Obama Gay Marriage thing is ratcheting up, I can only guess what kind of sucking the next Time Magazine cover will show.
“the woman’s breast mutated to imitate the buttocks which swell, attracting male attentions,”
That may explain why so many women think they deserve to have their asses kissed.
Gretawire’s blog says the child is 4 years old, instead of 3.
Looks 6.
Either way it’s offensive. It was meant to be.
I hate the age of Obama.
this arrogant, self-indulgent mother has made that kid’s life a living hell...
. . .
I feel so bad for her son. His mother was wrong to allow herself and her son to be posed that way. It degrades them both.
They could at least have left his name out of the story so that as he grows and gets googled, this isn’t the first thing people learn about him. Kids can be merciless and it’ll probably raise a few prospective employer’s eyebrows.
Real clever there, mom and Time.
You beat me to it.
Hello, weird part of reality. We meet again.
“weird part of reality.”
what’s weird is how hard they appear to be trying to put the weirdness over on us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.