Just preparing the kid for a lifetime of sucking on the government teet.
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.
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.
Midget porn?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Heck, I try it as often as possible and I’m errr retired.
Never too old.:^)