Have You Seen the Attention-Grabbing New TIME Cover?

How is this child abuse? Because the majority of society says so, at this time?

Is wasn't to long ago 12 year old kids would be working hard in fields and mines or having kids and cooking dinner for there husbands.
The kid is 3 and he is doing something natural. Sure the picture is all about sensationalism, creating an uproar and making money.This thread and every message, including mine, just shows how good they are at accomplishing that.

If you get abuse or child pornography from a picture showing a mother feeding her son, then you have a problem or are one of the people that can't think for them selfs, step back and look at the bigger picture...


EDIT: I wonder if people would have the same problem if the milk was pumped out and given to him in a bottle?
If so the problem people have is that they see it as something sexual right? You guys are sick

This is the freak show factor. It is the gay guy in a thong during a parade, the Klan wearing a sheet, and in years past bra burners.. One day it is a story the next it is an irritation. Freaks will be with you your entire life. Become one or ignore one, it is up to you.

Time to cut the Cord!!!

The mother is obviously doing this for HER own needs. That kid can obviously walk, and can hold a sippy cup.

These are the kids that end up getting picked on in school because they can't do anything for themselves, they end up being bullied, then turn around and shoot the entire school up, and who gets blamed?

Music, Movies, Video Games!

Not the Soccer Mom who couldn't cut the cord and kept the child on a leash until, and let the kid sleep in bed with them until they were 13.

Horrible, selfish parenting imo.

"Attachment Parenting"? are you kidding me? More like "Selfish Parenting", and inability to say No to the child.

How about trying to get your kid to become self reliant and independant as soon as possible?

This explains alot about the kids I see nowadays who get driven door to door to trick or treat. LOL.

@ 3+ years old!? I was outside all day scraping up my knees playing with the other kids on my block. The block was filled with kids ranging from pre-schoolers to early teens. Hide and go seek, Playing tag, freeze tag(for the little kids) kick the can, Spud (for the 6-9 year olds),and Stickball and Street hockey for the kids older than that, or if you were a boss, you could do it when you were 7 like me

How did we know when it was time to come home? When you couldn't see the ball anymore, that's when.

The sad thing is though is that it's that kid, and society as a whole who ends up paying for this selfish parenting.

Originally posted by nahahh
Here's a message: the system is milking you DRY. Another message could be: raising chidren and not adults. I guess we've forgotten the role as: PARENTS. At that age, my daughter was already bi-lingual and computer literate. She's age 6 now, and obtains information like a sponge. This boy will be raised as a MOMMA'S BOY...uncapable of doing what MEN are supposed to be do. Instead, his WIFE will be the one that does the "manly" things around the house. No one sees the role reversal that's been happening, since the women's rights movement began???

Does anyone remember the Murphy Brown episode, that made such a big deal about having a baby, out of wed-lock? That was the talk of the time. Now, we have this???

You know what needs to happen.......MEN need to step up, and start acting like MEN! This is why there will NEVER be a revolution. Men are WEAK!!!!! No EXCUSE ME....let me rephrase that: Today's MAN is weak!

Interesting how some people say that the system is milking us dry and others say that we are suckling the teet of the system. What are men SUPPOSED to do that women are incapable of doing? In a perfect world there would be no divorce, so if men are guided by societie's double mindedness, with "Independence" being the goal, makes sense that the outcome would be every man and women for themselves. I don't think men are weak in general. I know some pretty intelligent and compassionate men, though like women, they are few and far between.

The U.S. covers of this and many other magazines when compared to the counterpart covers published in other countries are often puzzling/insulting/weird/somehow telling/ridiculous/mysteries to me.

Here's the comparison for this particular issue: www.time.com...

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Just a scant 100 years ago in THIS country children were breastfed until they were able to chew solid (NOT JARRED MASHED) food.

The same could be said about marrying thirteen-yr-olds. Is that okay now as it was a hundred years ago? Things change.

I went and investigated the habits of primates and their breast feeding.

According to this article: "Gorillas in our midst"

Third, in all species studied so far, primates also wean their offspring at the time the first permanent molars erupt; this occurs at five and a half to six years in modern humans.

We appear to be the exception when it comes to all primate species.

Perhaps indeed this cover of Time magazine is reminiscent of our primal past, revealing the drastic changes we have undergone from the our origins.

Very strange indeed. I am going to ponder this more.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Just a scant 100 years ago in THIS country children were breastfed until they were able to chew solid (NOT JARRED MASHED) food.

The same could be said about marrying thirteen-yr-olds. Is that okay now as it was a hundred years ago? Things change.

Exactly there is no right and wrong.
We may progress technologically and socially but that doesn't mean we have it right. In 20 years time they will look back at this time period and think 'wow people really gave a # about someones sexual orientation, what barbarians!' Just like we do when we look back not to long ago at the 50s and see how normal it was to look down upon someone because they were black.

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Just a scant 100 years ago in THIS country children were breastfed until they were able to chew solid (NOT JARRED MASHED) food.

The same could be said about marrying thirteen-yr-olds. Is that okay now as it was a hundred years ago? Things change.

Yes it appears that as technology advanced our societal norms of behavior shifted. For thirteen year olds it was most likely the life expectancy and advances in birthing techniques that led to older ages being more accepted, thus the minimum ages increased along with the overall life expectancy ratings.

And with breast feeding it appears that the development of cutting or mashing tools, perhaps something like the mortar and pestle, and the advent of animal husbandry, our breast feeding weening periods began to grow shorter and shorter.

Even now today, there are people who never feed their child a single drop of breast milk.
But it's only because of and based upon technological development.
And obviously we are still primitive technicians because our milk replacements are not 100% up to par with the originals and do not provide nearly as much nutrition or antibodies, etc.

The first time I saw a woman breastfeeding a four year old, I've gotta say, I was shocked. Like slack-jawed shocked. But it didn't bother me, I just had never seen it before.

A lot of women breastfeed still at this age. The topic in and of itself is hotly debated for many many reasons. Sure, there are a lot of parenting tactics I didn't choose and wouldn't advocate for, but when it comes to breastfeeding...it should be encouraged and accepted more in public.

Now if the article was about how women are treated when breastfeeding in public (often rudely, or asked to cover up, etc) then I could see the picture being appropriate and not a ploy just to sell magazines.

The article, however, is on attachment parenting .Which yes, includes breastfeeding longer, and it's some parents method of choice. Why not have a Dad on the cover washing dishes with a 3 year old in a sling on his back?

I find the USE of this picture to sell a magazine inappropriate. I do not find the picture inappropriate. I WISH they would have done an article on how dreadful breastfeeding mothers are treated in public.

The size of the breast really has nothing to do with the milk production.You will supply as long as there is demand, and if you have trouble with supply there are ways to fix that.

Sincerely Val,
Who didn't breastfeed but for the first few weeks of my son's life, because my partner thought it was disgusting and that my milk was "Bad" due to being yellow (colostrum).

reply to post by Damrod


My daughter is 1 1/2 and stands, walks and runs on her own- I still breastfeed her and there is nothing gross or weird about it. I agree that the cover is clearly intended to cause a stir- more of the whole divide and conquer tactic.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I have to ask an odd question...how much milk is that kid getting?

I'm not trying to be crude...but I know from experience that when my wife was breastfeeding...well...the milk has to be stored somewhere.

In that picture...the women doesn't look like she is holding much milk.

I just kind of find that odd...but then again...maybe it is just my limitied experience of witnessing breast feeding.

edit on 10-5-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)

i am replying to you, because i do not want to read 5 more pages of this and your always cool... lol...

what i find disturbing about this beyond the fact that time is putting it on the cover (which will justify it in mothers eyes), and you can confirm this with your wife since she breast fed if she doesn't have issues with discussing it...

according to my ex-wife (she did stop at 3 months) there is a 'release' with breast feeding. alot like using a drug. she called it euphoric..

so basically the way I see it, these mothers are getting high at the cost of their childrens development.
its an addiction.
on the mothers part, not the child...

reply to post by baphomet420


so basically the way I see it, these mothers are getting high at the cost of their childrens development.
its an addiction.
on the mothers part, not the child...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do yo realize how offensive that is to Mothers who Breastfeed beyond 3 months
Calling them addicts
Sure it must be wonderful for a Mother to feed her child without going to Walmart
But you are showing more than a little ignorance and disrespect by comments
How uncool of you

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

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by SeenMyShare
Just a scant 100 years ago in THIS country children were breastfed until they were able to chew solid (NOT JARRED MASHED) food.

The same could be said about marrying thirteen-yr-olds. Is that okay now as it was a hundred years ago? Things change.

What the heck has Breastfeeding a child got to do with marrying at 13 - 100 years ago
It is non of anyones business how long a Mother breast feeds her child

Originally posted by Violater1

Lucky little sh*t

Seriously tho, i think breast feeding for say the first year 18 months is fine, after that it starts to get creepy.

I actually remember a tv show about this subject receiving a lot of attention a while ago over here in the UK because it featured an 8 year old that was still been breast fed

I just looked it up and i'm pretty sure the show was called 'Extraordinary Breastfeeding' heres part 1 for those interested

i cant get the video to link so the link is www.youtube.com... if anyone cares to do it for me.. cheers

Ah yer all taking it too seriously. Good God - other cultures now and in other times breastfed until 5 or 6. It's only because anything to do with nakedness, anything that conjures sexual images in this society is to be hidden at all costs.

Why do you think porn is so rampant? The existence of porn in our society is not evidence an over-sexed society but is evidence of the very opposite: a sex starved society that will NOT allow sex to be anything but hidden in every way possible.This automatically makes sex a sought after object.

More so, it makes people point out all kinds of non-existent things they think they see everywhere. Little do most people know that what they're pointing out is their own inability to accept sex as a true part of their lives, otherwise, they'd never need to be so horrified when others do it.

Time went too far this time.
I am scarred for life after seeing that.
That child will go through 10 kinds of hell if any of his future school mates find out this was him. This is exploitation, simple as that.
I will never buy another Time mag., ever.
Disgusting.

3 years after the baby is born is the female even capable of providing milk through her breasts, I thought it only lasted so long. Sure I can suck on a breast will any milk come out? NO unless shes pregnant or just got done delivering.

While I dont agree with this style of parenting, I dont really see anything wrong with the photo. But, I bet that we all just got TIME a whole lot o publicity.

Was wondering though, does anybody know if this is the European cover as well? Or, are they going to use something else?

In the style of National Inquirer and Lady Gaga, here we see a sensationalist image. Why use it? It works. Even here where we'd otherwise not give two cents on the magazine, here everyone is talking about it.

If you just forgot about it instead of giving it attention and feeding it, it would go away. But, instead, it will grow, and even more magazines will do something similar to provoke a response.

Again, I talk about this in depth in the thread linked below. I made it weeks ago, but it will continue to be ever-more relevant because sensationalism, lies, and exaggerations all serve the purpose of burying the truth, and the truth will need to be buried with increased fervor as the heavy stuff is unleashed to the public. It won't matter, because nobody will see it.

It worked here. It will work again, and nobody gives a dang because they enjoy their own reactions to it.

I'd ask people to view the thread I made, but few would. So it goes, the truth stays buried.