Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Time Mag’s Unholy Portrait of Mother and Child
The Christian Diarist ^ | May 13, 2012 | JP

Posted on 05/13/2012 5:26:43 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST

I caught Jamie Lynne Grumet’s interview on CNN. She’s the 26-year-old Los Angeles mother who thought there nothing shameful about being pictured on the cover of Time magazine with her 3-year-old boy sucking her breast.

“Our family is a little different than the average family,” she laughed.

But it was no laughing matter.

Time’s ungodly cover is kiddie porn dressed up as journalism. It will probably be a best-seller among demonically-influenced sickos out there who get off on the sexualization of children.

Yet Time magazine defends its cover, which it timed to coincide with Mother’s Day – the one Sunday each year when churches are filled not just by the faithful, heeding the Biblical commandment to “honor they mother, but also by those who do not otherwise attend church.

“Part of our job,” said Rick Stengel, Time’s unapologetic editor-in-chief, “is to provoke discussion and provoke thought.” But surely the magazine could have done so without exploiting all-too-willing Grumet and her little boy.

The L.A. mom offered a similar defense on CNN. “We weren’t doing it for publicity,” she insisted. “We were doing it to educate people.”

But of course.

She and her husband thought they would introduce the uninformed to so-called “attachment parenting.” It is the highly-questionable way of bringing up baby advocated by Dr. Bill Sears and wife Mary in their 1992 manual, “The Baby Book.”

It encourages moms like Grumet to breast-feed their offspring for not just the first six months of their lives, as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends, but well into toddlerhood.

It also encourages “co-sleeping,” in which a mom like Grumet shares a bed for any number of years with her child (and her husband, if he’s foolish enough to go along).

Ironically, Grumet herself is living proof that attachment parenting is damaging to children like her nearly four-year-old breast-feeding boy.

She told CNN that her own mom breast-fed her until she was fully six years old. That explains how Time’s cover mom turned out so twisted.


TOPICS: Current Events; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: blogpimp; parenting; pornography; time
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last
Time could have chosen a much less offensive photo to accompany its cover story but chose not to. Shame on them.
1 posted on 05/13/2012 5:26:54 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

It was all about shock value.

Nothing wrong with breast feeding unless you turn it into kiddie porn


2 posted on 05/13/2012 5:29:06 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

The woman is an idiot.

Unfortunately her son is going to have to live with her stupidity for the rest of his life since the photo will be on every social media site forever!


3 posted on 05/13/2012 5:29:56 PM PDT by JimVT (Oh, the days of the Kerry dancing, Oh, the ring of the piper's tune)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #4 Removed by Moderator

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

This woman is a pedophiles dream, and it seems her so-called husband is getting his wish. They are trying to make kiddie porn acceptable, and there is a special place below for subhumans like this.

This truly makes me ill.


5 posted on 05/13/2012 5:33:53 PM PDT by mardi59 (THE REBELLION IS ON!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

How can she produce enough milk for her 4 year old child and her husband? She has to be getting a thrill up her leg like Chris Matthews.


6 posted on 05/13/2012 5:38:04 PM PDT by YukonGreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

How can she produce enough milk for her 4 year old child and her husband? She has to be getting a thrill up her leg like Chris Matthews.


7 posted on 05/13/2012 5:38:27 PM PDT by YukonGreen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JimVT
The woman is an idiot.

Unfortunately her son is going to have to live with her stupidity for the rest of his life since the photo will be on every social media site forever!

The poor kid will be playing with Barbie dolls and wearing a dress before you know it. Liberals should probably not be allowed to raise children.

8 posted on 05/13/2012 5:38:52 PM PDT by Bullish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
“Our family is a little different than the average family,” she laughed.
9 posted on 05/13/2012 5:39:49 PM PDT by tumblindice (Our new, happy lives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tumblindice

Lurch had the right response to things like this: URRRRRRRRGH.


10 posted on 05/13/2012 5:43:44 PM PDT by jocon307
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bullish

Reminds me of a quote from the great Reggie Dunlop in the movie “Slapshot.”


11 posted on 05/13/2012 5:45:11 PM PDT by gusty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Without getting into the right or wrong of it all, the author completely misrepresents the American Academy of Pediatrics. I wouldn't be surprised if it does not force her to print a retraction or clarification on it's stance.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that babies be exclusively breastfed for about the first 6 months of life. This means your baby needs no additional foods (except Vitamin D) or fluids unless medically indicated. Babies should continue to breastfeed for a year and for as long as is mutually desired by the mother and baby.

12 posted on 05/13/2012 5:47:58 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Melas

Are you suggesting that the American Academy of Pediatrics approves of a mother breastfeeding her nearly four-year-old boy?


13 posted on 05/13/2012 6:02:19 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

It does indeed provided that it is still mutually desirable. However, please don’t take my word for it, contact them yourself, but out of courtesy, please post the response you receive here for all to see.


14 posted on 05/13/2012 6:07:58 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
While our daughters were not breast fed they did have the occasional bottle till they were a little over three years of age.

As I understand it breast feeding past two years, and sometimes well into the third year, used to be fairly common.

As a side effect, while the mother is still breast feeding she is much less likely to become pregnant again.

15 posted on 05/13/2012 6:19:43 PM PDT by Just another Joe (Warning: FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

The human breast is primarily an instrument of nutrition for the young and only secondarily sexual. In a healthy society, that is.

Those who see kiddie porn in this photo are importing something from their own mind that isn’t actually in it.

The editors, of course, also saw sexuality in the image, which is why they chose to use it.

Hannah in the Bible, the mother of the prophet Samuel, sent him off to serve in the temple as soon as he was weaned, which certainly doesn’t imply he was a six-month or year-old infant.

In the book of Maccabees a woman reminds her son she nursed him for three years, which was probably the approximate standard for Middle Eastern cultures of the time.


16 posted on 05/13/2012 6:24:32 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
“As I understand it breast feeding past two years, and sometimes well into the third year, used to be fairly common.”

A Natural Age of Weaning

by Katherine Dettwyler, PhD

Texas A&M University

My research has looked at the various “life-history” variables (such as length of gestation, birth weight, growth rate, age at sexual maturity, age at eruption of teeth, life span, etc.) in non-human primates and then looked at how these variables correlate with age at weaning in these animals. These are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, especially gorillas and chimpanzees, who share more than 98% of their genes with humans. I came up with a number of predictions for when humans would “naturally” wean their children if they didn't have a lot of cultural rules about it. This interest stemmed from a reading of the cross-cultural literature on age at weaning, which shows that cultures have very different beliefs about when children should be weaned, from very early in the U.S. to very late in some places. One often hears that the worldwide average age of weaning is 4.2 years, but this figure is neither accurate nor meaningful. A survey of 64 “traditional” studies done prior to the 1940s showed a median duration of breastfeeding of about 2.8 years, but with some societies breastfeeding for much shorter, and some for much longer. It is meaningless, statistically, to speak of an average age of weaning worldwide, as so many children never nurse at all, or their mothers give up in the first few days, or at six weeks when they go back to work. It is true that there are still many societies in the world where children are routinely breastfed until the age of four or five years or older, and even in the United States, some children are nursed for this long and longer. In societies where children are allowed to nurse “as long as they want” they usually self-wean, with no arguments or emotional trauma, between 3 and 4 years of age. This interest also stemmed from the realization that other animals have “natural” ages of weaning, around 8 weeks for dogs, 8-12 months for horses, etc. Presumably these animals don't have cultural beliefs about when it would be appropriate.

Some of the results are as follows:

1. In a group of 21 species of non-human primates (monkeys and apes) studied by Holly Smith, she found that the offspring were weaned at the same time they were getting their first permanent molars. In humans, that would be: 5.5-6.0 years.

2. It has been common for pediatricians to claim that length of gestation is approximately equal to length of nursing in many species, suggesting a weaning age of 9 months for humans. However, this relationship turns out to be affected by how large the adult animals are — the larger the adults, the longer the length of breastfeeding relative to gestation. For chimpanzees and gorillas, the two primates closest in size to humans and also the most closely genetically related, the relationship is 6 to 1. That is to say, they nurse their offspring for SIX times the length of gestation (actually 6.1 for chimps and 6.4 for gorillas, with humans mid-way in size between these two). In humans, that would be: 4.5 years of nursing (six times the 9 months of gestation).

3. It has been common for pediatricians to claim that most mammals wean their offspring when they have tripled their birth weight, suggesting a weaning age of 1 year in humans. Again though, this is affected by body weight, with larger mammals nursing their offspring until they have quadrupled their birth weight. In humans, quadrupling of birth weight occurs between 2.5 and 3.5 years, usually.

4. One study of primates showed that the offspring were weaned when they had reached about 1/3 their adult weight. This happens in humans at about 5-7 years.

5. A comparison of weaning age and sexual maturity in non-human primates suggests a weaning age of 6-7 for humans (about half-way to reproductive maturity).

6. Studies have shown that a child's immune system doesn't completely mature until about 6 years of age, and it is well established that breast milk helps develop the immune system and augment it with maternal antibodies as long as breast milk is produced (up to two years, no studies have been done on breast milk composition after two years post partum).

And on and on. The minimum predicted age for a natural age of weaning in humans is 2.5 years, with a maximum of 7.0 years.

In terms of the benefits of extended breastfeeding, there have been a number of studies comparing breastfed and bottlefed babies in terms of the frequency of various diseases, and also IQ achievement. In every case, the breastfed babies had lower risk of disease and higher IQs than the bottle-fed babies. In those studies that divided breastfed babies into categories based on length of breastfeeding, the babies breastfed the longest did better in terms of both lower disease and higher IQ. In other words, if the categories were 0-6 months of breastfeeding, 6-12 months, 12-18 months and 18-24+ months, then the 18-24+ month babies did the best, and the 12-18 month babies did the next best, and the 6-12 months babies did the next best, and the 0-6 months babies did the worst of the breastfed groups, but still much better than the bottlefeeding group. This has been shown for gastrointestinal illness, upper respiratory illness, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, heart disease, and on and on and on. Likewise, the babies nursed the longest scored the highest on the IQ tests. One important point to notice is that none of these studies looked at children who had nursed longer than 2 years. Anyone 18-24 month or longer was lumped into big category. Presumably, the benefits continue to accrue, as your body doesn't *know* that the baby has bad a birth day and suddenly start producing nutritionally and immunologically worthless milk.

However, no one has yet proved, either way, that the benefits of breastfeeding either continue or stop at two years of age, because the appropriate studies have not been done. The trend during the first two years is clearly for continuing benefits the longer you nurse. Clearly the phenomenon of dimishing returns is at work here — the first six months of breastfeeding are clearly much more important in terms of the baby's nutrition and immunological development than the six months from 3.5 to 4.0 years. That doesn't mean that you shouldn't continue to provide breast milk if your baby wants and you don't mind. It would be like saying, “Well Mabel, we don't get very much income from that oil well anymore. Used to get $56 a month in royalties, now we're lucky if we get $25 a year. Guess we should tell that oil company just to keep their durn money.” And Mabel says, in return “Good grief, Clyde, don't be ridiculous. That check still buys $25 worth of food. Where has your mind gone to now?”

Clearly, babies born in the U.S. don't have to contend with all the diseases and parasites and contaminated water that babies in Third World countries do. We have more supplementary foods that we can generally trust to be safe and clean. We can get our children immunized, and get them antibiotics for infections when necessary. The fact that we *can* does not mean that breastfeeding is unimportant. Breastfed babies still have the “edge” over bottlefed babies, even in a squeaky clean environment with wonderful medical care. They get sick less often, they are smarter, they are happier. Another important consideration for the older child is that they are able to maintain their emotional attachment to a person, rather than being forced to switch to an inanimate object such as a teddy bear or blanket. I think this sets the stage for a life of people-orientation, rather than materialism, and I think that is a good thing. I also can't imagine living through the toddler years without that close loving connection to a child going through enormous changes, some of which are very frustrating to the child. I could go on forever, but will stop here.

I hope this has been of help. These ideas are developed much more eloquently and in much greater detail in my chapter “A Time to Wean” in Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives, being published by Aldine de Gruyter.

Prepared August 3, 1995. Edited February 10, 1997.

17 posted on 05/13/2012 6:25:24 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

This poor kid is going to suffer the tortures of the damned throughout his school years and will make some psychiatrist very wealthy some day. This has to be some kind of record-setter for self-absorbed, clueless parenting.


18 posted on 05/13/2012 6:28:22 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Here’s the American Academy of Family Physicians position on how long a child should be breast-fed. Seems perfectly logical to me.

“As recommended by the WHO, breastfeeding should ideally continue beyond infancy, but this is not the cultural norm in the United States and requires ongoing support and encouragement.69 It has been estimated that a natural weaning age for humans is between two and seven years.70 Family physicians should be knowledgeable regarding the ongoing benefits to the child of extended breastfeeding, including continued immune protection,71 better social adjustment,72 and having a sustainable food source in times of emergency. The longer women breastfeed, the greater the decrease in their risk of breast cancer.73”

http://www.aafp.org/online/en/home/policy/policies/b/breastfeedingpositionpaper.html


19 posted on 05/13/2012 6:31:43 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AnotherUnixGeek

I couldn’t agree with you more.


20 posted on 05/13/2012 6:33:35 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

While I’d never pose with my kids like this, I’m quite disturbed at FReepers commenting on her personal pleasure. As a nursing mommy, I can assure everyone that there is NO sexual pleasure from nursing. More power to her for her choice, I’d love the fortitude to pump and then pour into a cup milk for my kids; however, 18 months is all each of them gets from me! Mommy can only take so much!


21 posted on 05/13/2012 6:39:35 PM PDT by goodwithagun (My gun has killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy's car.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

TIME Magazine is, frankly, over.

Like USN&WR and Newsweek, no one will attend its funeral.


22 posted on 05/13/2012 6:43:32 PM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thank you for your comment James. I understand the benefits of breastfeeding infants. But do you approve of a mom being pictured on the cover of national magazine breastfeeding her nearly four-year-old boy?


23 posted on 05/13/2012 6:44:32 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

Thank you for your comment James. I understand the benefits of breastfeeding infants. But do you approve of a mom being pictured on the cover of national magazine breastfeeding her nearly four-year-old boy?


24 posted on 05/13/2012 6:44:32 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan; CHRISTIAN DIARIST

That’s almost word for word what CD is going to get when he/she contacts the AAP. That’s provided that CD is honest enough to mea culpa and admit that he/she did indeed completely misrepresent the organization. I’m skeptical, but hopeful.


25 posted on 05/13/2012 6:46:43 PM PDT by Melas (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

But do you approve of a mom being pictured on the cover of national magazine breastfeeding her nearly four-year-old boy? Yes! According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Breast-feeding should continue “as long as mutually desired by mother and child.” Moreover, “there is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychological or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer.” People have to realize this is biologically normal. It’s not socially normal. The more people see it, the more it’ll become normal in our culture. Go Jamie, I’m behind you all the way.


26 posted on 05/13/2012 6:56:33 PM PDT by Colorado Cowgirl (God bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

As my cousin very wisely observed, “He’s gonna go to high school with kids who saw that.” And mercy they will show him none.


27 posted on 05/13/2012 7:22:18 PM PDT by Category Four (Joy, Fun, the Joke Proper, and Flippancy ... Flippancy is the best of all.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST; Sherman Logan

I posted that because it seemed like there is an overwhelming bias against breastfeeding beyond age 2, as if doing so implied paedophilia by default.

I agree with Sherman Logan when he mentions:

“The human breast is primarily an instrument of nutrition for the young and only secondarily sexual. In a healthy society, that is.

Those who see kiddie porn in this photo are importing something from their own mind that isn’t actually in it.”

- Comment #16, above.

Unnecessary fixation of the natural function of the breast used for beyond 6 months of the child’s life with pornography speaks of a very, very sick and diseased mindset, more than anything else.


28 posted on 05/13/2012 7:29:22 PM PDT by James C. Bennett (An Australian.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Time’s ungodly cover is kiddie porn dressed up as journalism.

This is not kiddie porn. There is no sex act here. Feeding a babe-in-arms from the mother's breast must have no prurient sexual connotation in a mature culture.

The real depravity here is that it it child abuse! No child should be forced to carry memories into adulthood of suckling at his mother's breast. There is no way to predict or imagine the psychological basket-case this child or another child of similar circumstances will become due to this pernicious act.

Couple that with the understanding that this mother was willing to prostitute her parental duty and violate the trust of the boy for notoriety or some other petty gain reveals her truly aberrant crime.

29 posted on 05/13/2012 7:42:01 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

What kind of sicko equates breastfeeding with sex?


30 posted on 05/13/2012 7:54:14 PM PDT by ExGeeEye (Islam: a transnational fascist government that demands worship.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

I guess i don’t care what other people do as long as they don’t try and push it on the rest of us...which these nazi breast feeders do.

To me its just common sense. Breastfeeding is for babies. not toddlers. If they have teeth and can eat food then they should be door sucking on the tit.

I suppose if this were a third world country it might be a different story...but it isn’t. we have nutritous food in abundance and don’t need to breast feed for years.

My children were all breastfed for about six months. all are happy, well rounded, non-obese, straight A students. And since all are in their teens and none have had more than a common cold or the flu i would say extremely healthy. So seriously i can’t see what breastfeeding for decades would have given them that they don’t already have.

I resent the implication that if you don’t nurse for eons that your kids will be unhealthy, fat little retards.


31 posted on 05/13/2012 8:02:59 PM PDT by annelizly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Check out the cover - it definitely ain’t what yer thinking.This is disturbing and it was done to shock and sell their rag. Nothing in Time has much value anymore, so they’ve got to latch onto something to sell their leftist trash.


32 posted on 05/13/2012 8:09:34 PM PDT by WorkingClassFilth (I'm for Churchill in 1940!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Using common sense is a rare commodity; and whatever sells is what they’re selling. Breast feeding a baby, covered with a little modesty is beautiful . . a baby being the operative word; but their aim is to ultimately present the extreme as something the bitter clingers out here do. In reality, the normal person is modest and reasonable about it.


33 posted on 05/13/2012 8:12:09 PM PDT by Twinkie (John 3:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Eric in the Ozarks
How many of us over the years turned the cover of Newsweak around on the shelf at every newsstand, drugstore or supermarket we frequented?

The same seems warranted for Time.

34 posted on 05/13/2012 8:14:45 PM PDT by higgmeister ( In the Shadow of The Big Chicken!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

I think it’s a personal decision for and by the family. If someone wants to breast feed their child that long be my guest. I’m inclined to think it benefits the Mother more than the child though. Maybe she gets lots of attention, even it some of it is bad. Maybe she can’t let go.
Also it was definitely shock value on Time’s part, and for selling magazines. I wouldn’t have a problem if the picture were of the Mother seated with the child facing her with his back to the camera. But standing on a chair? and looking into the camera like he’s saying, “see, there’s nothing wrong with it right?” and the Mother looks like she’s ready to leave for yoga class or something. It just doesn’t look right.


35 posted on 05/13/2012 8:18:31 PM PDT by happilymarriedmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

There is definitely nothing wrong with breast feeding, but it should and can be done modestly.


36 posted on 05/13/2012 8:37:07 PM PDT by Bellflower (The LORD is Holy, separated from all sin, perfect, righteous, high and lifted up.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth

I have seen the cover.

It’s exactly what I think it is.


37 posted on 05/13/2012 9:24:18 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

I saw mothers in Argentina breastfeed their three- and four-year-olds all the time. It shocked me at first, but it’s part of their culture and after a while I ignored it.


38 posted on 05/13/2012 11:05:58 PM PDT by Choose Ye This Day (There's no shame in attacking a criminal's bean bag. -- Ron Swanson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: annelizly

Best post on this thread

Nutty woman nursing her soon to be in analysis kid

She is a crusader....a nut.....coulda been Obamas Mom


39 posted on 05/13/2012 11:23:52 PM PDT by wardaddy (I am a social conservative. My political party left me(again). They can go to hell in a bucket.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: annelizly

What is not being said is related to the sexual rush ‘momma’ gets when the teet is suck upon. A new mother who breast feeds has her uterus return to normal much faster than a non-breast feeding mother. There is a ‘link’ between the nipple and the ‘groin area’.


40 posted on 05/13/2012 11:37:59 PM PDT by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Breast feeding, like sex is not a spectator sport....


41 posted on 05/13/2012 11:54:34 PM PDT by goat granny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I agree, even the mom admitted that was not how she breastfed her child but that the picture was posed to generate controversy.


42 posted on 05/14/2012 12:17:39 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

You are wrong about it being recommended that children be weaned at 6 months. There is nothing wrong with extended breast feeding and it does offer benefits to toddlers.


43 posted on 05/14/2012 12:20:27 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

Yes. At that age the child will be eating quite a lot of other foods but there is nothing wrong with breast feeding at that age. When children self wean it is usually between the ages of 3 and 4.


44 posted on 05/14/2012 12:32:08 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: James C. Bennett

I just read that article the other day. Thanks for posting it here.

The magazine cover is controversial not because of breast feeding but because of its sexualization of breast feeding. People trying to make extended nursing the bad guy are wrong.


45 posted on 05/14/2012 12:35:32 AM PDT by lastchance ("Nisi credideritis, non intelligetis" St. Augustine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: lastchance

How many children do you have? I have 10, and they self-weaned around the age of one year with two exceptions. One daughter self-weaned at 6 months. She is the most stubborn, independent child to this day. And our youngest self-weaned at 15 months. But what do I know???


46 posted on 05/14/2012 12:50:24 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

When you have breastfed one baby or ten, then you might be able to comment on such. And when you have breastfed a newborn while your uterus is contracting due to the release of pitocin-like hormones, come back and tell me how titillating that feels. Oh, but wait until the engorgement sets in first.

My grandmother nursed my uncle until he was 5. I guarantee she did it to avoid another pregnancy. You are correct that there is a connection between the uterus contracting while breast feeding. My uncle is a very intelligent person, but he is sooo liberal that you would think he was a titty-baby for too many years. But sexual pleasure for Grandma? Lol I don’t think so!


47 posted on 05/14/2012 1:08:20 AM PDT by petitfour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

I feel really bad for the little boy, when he grows up, he will have to beg all the sources that have that picture to “get rid of that digusting picture”.


48 posted on 05/14/2012 3:29:07 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sherman Logan

Rather those who are offended are simply are concerned about the need to be modest.


49 posted on 05/14/2012 3:32:35 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: CHRISTIAN DIARIST

At least Rush had the picture photoshoped with the Statue of Liberty as a reminder of how out of control government is getting.


50 posted on 05/14/2012 3:34:30 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-54 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson