Have You Seen the Attention-Grabbing New TIME Cover?

reply to post by violet


I doubt it'll be that serious. Children that young are still very impressionable and very easily conditioned. Provided he'll still try to get milk from his mother for a while, he'll eventually give up. The the urge, however, may stay with him for a long time depending on far along he has developed when he becomes forever severed from his mother's breast.

I agree with you, though, that mothers have a responsibility to take their children off of breast milk; the child won't suddenly decide, "enough is enough, time for me to grow up now!"

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by Annee
So?

There are actually many mothers that nurse their children up to school age.

And it harms what exactly?

I agree - What harm is it doing - In fact the opposite as it is seen as beneficial for the developing immune system
But to put it on the front of this glossy rag begs a reaction which plenty of you have worryingly expressed.
Which show how out of touch with the Natural World we have become.
Perfectly Natural only thing needing looking at here is the reactions given.
Why are people shocked at such things which we all have done and will continue to do
What if it was an image of of some one going to do their toilet business in a wood - Yes somethings should be private but it does not make them wrong.
So by the push your button reactions next step - Public Outrage - New Law for age limit on breastfeeding.
Most of the reactions posted feed into a mindset that is all too prevalent.
By just saying Sick Child Abuse ETC holds up a mirror to how unnatural we have become
Christ grow up and stop condemning all you can not understand.

edit on 11-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

we used to club women over the heads and drag them into the cave, we used to sacrifice kids on top of mountains in central America- was this all "natural" and somehow "real", are you suggesting we regress to some sort of animalistic state

Move to the Amazon, Im sure the tribes will welcome you

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by Annee
So?

There are actually many mothers that nurse their children up to school age.

And it harms what exactly?

I agree - What harm is it doing - In fact the opposite as it is seen as beneficial for the developing immune system
But to put it on the front of this glossy rag begs a reaction which plenty of you have worryingly expressed.
Which shows how out of touch with the Natural World we have become.
Perfectly Natural only thing needing looking at here is the reactions given.
Why are people shocked at such things which we all have done and will continue to do
What if it was an image of of some one going to do their toilet business in a wood - Yes somethings should be private but it does not make them wrong.
So by the push your button reactions next step - Public Outrage - New Law for age limit on breastfeeding.
Most of the reactions posted feed into a mindset that is all too prevalent.
By just saying Sick Child Abuse ETC holds up a mirror to how unnatural we have become
Christ grow up and stop condemning all you can not understand.

edit on 11-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2012 by artistpoet because: typo

While I agree that it's natural, there is, more or less, an age limit. If we're going to talk about natural behavior, we should look at mammals which also breastfeed their young. If animals don't breastfeed for years, neither should people. In the animal kingdom mothers know that for their offspring to survive, they have to eventually learn self-reliance, hence why they throw them into the wild with little support from a young age.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Simple rule...

If they can ask for it, ask for seconds, or fish it out themselves... = too old to be breast feeding...

Just a tip from your Uncle Gaz...

That is your rule for your reasons but should your rule be law - Of course not and others have the right to do as they think fit so you should have added IMO

Yet no one moans about grown men at the nipple in porn movies? I really do not understand what all the fuss is about, white Christian double standards no doubt.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by Annee
So?

There are actually many mothers that nurse their children up to school age.

And it harms what exactly?

I agree - What harm is it doing - In fact the opposite as it is seen as beneficial for the developing immune system
But to put it on the front of this glossy rag begs a reaction which plenty of you have worryingly expressed.
Which shows how out of touch with the Natural World we have become.
Perfectly Natural only thing needing looking at here is the reactions given.
Why are people shocked at such things which we all have done and will continue to do
What if it was an image of of some one going to do their toilet business in a wood - Yes somethings should be private but it does not make them wrong.
So by the push your button reactions next step - Public Outrage - New Law for age limit on breastfeeding.
Most of the reactions posted feed into a mindset that is all too prevalent.
By just saying Sick Child Abuse ETC holds up a mirror to how unnatural we have become
Christ grow up and stop condemning all you can not understand.

edit on 11-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

edit on 11-5-2012 by artistpoet because: typo

While I agree that it's natural, there is, more or less, an age limit. If we're going to talk about natural behavior, we should look at mammals which also breastfeed their young. If animals don't breastfeed for years, neither should people. In the animal kingdom mothers know that for their offspring to survive, they have to eventually learn self-reliance, hence why they throw them into the wild with little support from a young age.

Yet someone else coming up with a rule "If animals don't breastfeed for years, neither should people"
Have you done a study and how can you compare one animal with another as each have different life spans and ranges of time for development - In effect you are saying it is wrong but who are you to say
Let each make their own choice - OK you believe it be wrong at certain age then don't do it but also allow others their choice without condemning or wanting to make a rule for all

Originally posted by pikestaff
Yet no one moans about grown men at the nipple in porn movies?

Duh, of course not. Breasts are for silicone insertions, nipple piercings and grown up men. Little children have no business nibbling on nipples, iiew.

/sarcasm off

Sometimes i hate homo-sapiens.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by Annee
So?

There are actually many mothers that nurse their children up to school age.

And it harms what exactly?

I agree - What harm is it doing - In fact the opposite as it is seen as beneficial for the developing immune system
But to put it on the front of this glossy rag begs a reaction which plenty of you have worryingly expressed.
Which show how out of touch with the Natural World we have become.
Perfectly Natural only thing needing looking at here is the reactions given.
Why are people shocked at such things which we all have done and will continue to do
What if it was an image of of some one going to do their toilet business in a wood - Yes somethings should be private but it does not make them wrong.
So by the push your button reactions next step - Public Outrage - New Law for age limit on breastfeeding.
Most of the reactions posted feed into a mindset that is all too prevalent.
By just saying Sick Child Abuse ETC holds up a mirror to how unnatural we have become
Christ grow up and stop condemning all you can not understand.

edit on 11-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)

we used to club women over the heads and drag them into the cave, we used to sacrifice kids on top of mountains in central America- was this all "natural" and somehow "real", are you suggesting we regress to some sort of animalistic state

Move to the Amazon, Im sure the tribes will welcome you

Lol so you have studied History and this version of yours is not some cartoon Archetype
Perhaps you should consider what Natural truly means instead of taking the easy option by assuming I meant some stone age cartoon version - Wow some people are so out of touch with Nature and Reality
EDIT You say go live in the Amazon - well now you are really showing how you are deluded into thinking your Matrix view of reality is superior

reply to post by stanguilles7


Dude did you just come out of the closet on ATS?

Originally posted by Exitt

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
There is a big difference between breast milk and breast feeding. Children older than 2 or 3 do not need to breast feed in order to be fed breast milk. No sugar coating, this woman is a pervert.

USE A FREAKING BREAST PUMP !!!

Nope, i'm pretty sure you are the Pervert having perverted thoughts about a 3 year old boy latching on a breast...think about it.

Breastfeeding is not just food for children, it is about feeling secure and loved ( hormones of happiness and tranquility flow from one human being to another, that's science talking) and a breast pump or a plastic bottle is neither.

There is nothing motherly or natural about the posture and mannerisms of the woman and child in that photo. I have no issue with breasts, as I have my own, or breastfeeding. But that is not the way mothers breastfeed or bond with their child. There is nothing warm or nurturing about that photo. I am NOT offended by the other photos in the magazine. You can see them here:

images.huffingtonpost.com...

Also, the notion that a child can't feel secue or loved without a breast in their face is total BS. What about a mother who does not breastfeed, the child's father, or its grandparents? I was breastfed as a baby, but I always felt more loved and secure in my grandmother's arms than my mother's because she was a very emotionally caring kind of person and it had nothing to do with breasts.

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Originally posted by stanguilles7
So, the blaze runs an article complaining about the 'attention-grabbing' cover, which they then run as ... wait for it... an attention grabbing image!

I hope you all do indeed note the irony. Or is it hypocrisy?

The article wouldn't make much sense without the image, would it?? Or are you saying they should not even have done the article? What ARE you saying? They should just keep their mouths shut about this? I don't read Time, I would not have known. I just don't get how it would make sense to do the article without the image... And, if you're saying they should not have done the article, then, well, why??? Shame on them for creating an interesting article that has a controversial image that was already shown to millions? Shame on them for staying loyal to their readers by continuing to provide interesting and thought provoking material? Too sensational? I'll wrote them a message suggesting their next one be an interview about watching paint dry. Or an investigative report about watching grass grow.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

Originally posted by Exitt

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
There is a big difference between breast milk and breast feeding. Children older than 2 or 3 do not need to breast feed in order to be fed breast milk. No sugar coating, this woman is a pervert.

USE A FREAKING BREAST PUMP !!!

Nope, i'm pretty sure you are the Pervert having perverted thoughts about a 3 year old boy latching on a breast...think about it.

Breastfeeding is not just food for children, it is about feeling secure and loved ( hormones of happiness and tranquility flow from one human being to another, that's science talking) and a breast pump or a plastic bottle is neither.

What about the child's father? Are you saying that a father can't make his child feel secure and loved simply by holding the kid in his arms? That without a breast in their mouth its not the same.

Give me a break. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?

Ummm, children do have a special connection with their father that involves feeling safe. It's a different connection though. That's why every child should ideally grow up with a mother and a father. There's certain things they receive from the feminine side that they cannot get from the masculine side. So both are preferred. And with a mother, the child receives nutrients and also forms a kind of psychological habit when breastfeeding and use it does comfort them, make them feel safe and secure. A child who grew up never experiencing that would not have formed that habit. I was never breastfed. I hear that the mother/child relationship will not have as much trust or whatever and with me that might have been true. But on the upside, when I have a woman's breast in my mouth, the inner me isn't thinking about my mommy Anyway, I also agree with the other poster that people who have a problem with this need to mind their own business. It was his mother. He's doing something he's been doing since a baby and there are no sexual connotations for the kid, he's not even old enough to think that way. If anything he will feel a lot closer with his mother as he grows up. Fact is, if there's no law against it, and its not your kid, then its not your business. And while this may not be true for all of you, some of you are truly the perverts here if your mind automatically says this is dirty. I doubt you know anything about a mothers love and her connection to her child. When I have kids, my child won't be doing this at 3 most likely, but that will mostly be up to my wife anyway, and the bottom line for me is, if someone else wants to do that then go ahead. You have that right. I don't even care if its in public. Why deprive a child of food because of political correctness?? If someone stares they are the pervert and the one with the problem. Get over it, its a part of human life. Do you giggle uncontrollably everytime someone carts? Should sneezing be against the law too? It's more dangerous than breastfeeding either in public or to a 3 year old or both... A sneeze spreads germs, viruses, saliva, snot, maybe even blood, right into the air youre breathing. And it doesn't even perform the miracle of providing sustenance readymade for a babies growing body!

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


BEGIN RANT

Let's see...drinking milk from humans beyond a certain age is absolutely disgusting.

But drinking milk from anything other than a human as an adult, however, is NOT disgusting.

Got it.

Just checking to make sure the double-standard is still holding true and golden. If it would be disgusting to see a grown man drinking milk from his mother's breasts, why wouldn't it, therefore, be disgusting to see a grown man drinking milk from the breast of ANY animal at all?

We've all been brainwashed to pay the dairy industry for a product nature did not intend for us to consume beyond infancy. This is why 17 year old football players are croaking on the field. There was a scientist who discovered that pasturized cow's milk caused premature apoptosis, but of course, I never heard a peep out of the man since he published that report.

I wonder why..

Just think about it for a second - if we're supposed to be drinking cow's milk from the get-go, then why the hell must it be so highly processed first so it doesn't flat-out kill us?

Do you see the lie yet?

END RANT

(and besides, how people want to raise their children is just like anything else - their business - so long as they KEEP it their business...golly I'm cranky...maybe I shouldn't post this...NAH, this is the Internet! I shall push that shiny button that keeps me from making new friends!)

reply to post by rtyfx


Actually the primates breast feed their offspring relatively longer than we do.

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).

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.

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.

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

There is nothing motherly or natural about the posture and mannerisms of the woman and child in that photo. I have no issue with breasts, as I have my own, or breastfeeding. But that is not the way mothers breastfeed or bond with their child. There is nothing warm or nurturing about that photo. I am NOT offended by the other photos in the magazine.

edit on 11-5-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)

I am positive i've read your previous comment correctly, stating 2 and 3 year olds are not supposed to breastfeed and a mother being a pervert for doing so. You did not comment that picture or posture, I have though, I wrote it is not a realistic representation. That photo is made to provoke and make people talk about it.

However, calling that mother a pervert you have also called me a pervert and every other mother who breastfed longer than 2 years. The thing is, we are not, it's people that see sexual connotations in breastfeeding that are perverts themselves.

And you are not the only one, there are hundreds of people here who agree with you. But you know what, most of those hypocrite people (maybe even you) go to bed at night and engage in a play where a man puts his penis between a woman's breasts, sucks her breast for sexual pleasure and maybe even videotape all that. I don't go around calling those people perverts do I? Do you? Do they see themselves as perverts? That's the irony of life and not breastfeeding a child past 24 months.

reply to post by guavas

Good point.
Yes what other animal continues to drink Mothers Milk from another animal for a life time
Mothers Milk intended for it's young
Yes how natural a habit is this

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen


Our foul media has been pushing the incest theme very hard lately - look at any show on HBO and you'll find it immediately. Just more of that, I assume. It's meant to be titillating (pun intended, I guess).

Originally posted by MaryStillToe
There is nothing motherly or natural about the posture and mannerisms of the woman and child in that photo. I have no issue with breasts, as I have my own, or breastfeeding. But that is not the way mothers breastfeed or bond with their child. There is nothing warm or nurturing about that photo. I am NOT offended by the other photos in the magazine. You can see them here:

images.huffingtonpost.com...

edit on 11-5-2012 by MaryStillToe because: (no reason given)

I agree, Mary. They purposefully chose a shot for the cover that was not motherly, because they wanted it to be sexual. It grossed me out too.

Thats........pretty low...And...wrong. Heck, I would give money to suck the girls breast, as would many a man, but a CHILD!? No way. Its plain wrong. Well........besides the fact I am about to hurl.....
Anyway, This is child porn. Literally. It fits every one of the requirements to be CP. Anyway, In my opinion, and hopefully most of the sane population of the countries(Not thats many people...but..), this is wrong.

Originally posted by lordgrrl
reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

 

Our foul media has been pushing the incest theme very hard lately - look at any show on HBO and you'll find it immediately. Just more of that, I assume. It's meant to be titillating (pun intended, I guess).

I agree and to add
I think it is called social engineering or Problem reaction solution
Go back 50 or so years and Mothers breastfeed their children for longer but as our life's got busied up trying to survive in the hustle bustle of modern life Breastfeeding was seen as more of an inconvenience
If any react with words like disgusting they are brainwashed and there is the reaction to a non problem so what is the next step with those who cast the accusations of Child Abuse - What is the intention of The glossy rag - as it is not something new but something they are sensationalizing and who is measuring the reaction and what is the Agenda behind such things - can you see the pattern