It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Have You Seen the Attention-Grabbing New TIME Cover?

page: 23
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Well, while I do agree that people are dumbed down to the current social situations. Its partly because of this kind of crap.

Had they decided to go with a cover story of the French elections, I promise there would be a hell of alot more intelligent converstaions goin on right now.

Im going to bet that not many people in the other countries with alternate covers are going to be debating/dividing over public breastfeeding or different parenting skills.

Its propoganda, and a divide tactic. This and the gay rights issue are moot points. Nobody can ever prove to be right on either issue. All there will ever be is bickering and dividing. And thats the point, you cant blame the "dumb sheep" for this, they just fell into the ploy.




posted on May, 12 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chickensalad
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


Well, while I do agree that people are dumbed down to the current social situations. Its partly because of this kind of crap.

Had they decided to go with a cover story of the French elections, I promise there would be a hell of alot more intelligent conversations goin on right now.


exactly right. I have not meet 1 person yet who has found the french elections fascinating or interesting, in real life.
A new french socialist president who belongs to a party who has been having great success in local European elections. how is that not big news?The world is a changing! And it wasn't to long ago economical downturn caused socialist revolutions.
But hey lets argue over a kid getting milk from its mother. We don't want to point out that the capitalist world is going through another tough time and it obvious flaws are showing



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Bixxi3
 


This is where the discussion really needs to be heading. Deny Ignorance. Come on ATS your better than TIME's ploy. Discuss the reall issues here. Why are they not releasing this cover anywhere else?

This question has been raised about a few other mags before. But, the issues at hand were more political and/or cultural. Now, they put up a controversial cover that really has nothing to do with the article and you all buy into it.

If we dont buy it, whey wont make it.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 12:51 PM
link   
Yes, the cover is inappropriate. I think most agree here. Much of my feelings have been expressed, but I wanted to share one thing from my own experience. I greatly wanted to breastfeed my baby, but she refused to drink from a breast. So I did the next best thing. I pumped the milk and gave it to her in a bottle for nearly 6 months. After my baby began eating food around that time (solids) she really didn't even want to have milk anymore, it became more or less a bottle in the morning and a bottle at night and water the rest of the day. This was just how she was, and she still is fiercely independent and choosey. However, in the hospital, I had what seemed like an entire brigade of lactation drill sergeants who wanted to hop down my throat to force me to breast feed. My milk didn't even come in until I left the hospital (day 2) and what exactly would the child have been getting? Yet she was content with the formula.

They even went as far as to lie to me and say that a newborn's aunt was the mother (very svelte and thin woman) and they pointed her out to me as we were leaving, saying if I breastfed the baby, I would have looked like that leaving as well. It was clear who the mum was though, as I had seen her previously on the maternity ward. I was just floored that they would lie so blatantly trying to force me to breastfeed. And guess what? My daughter still got sick once or twice as a baby, and my formula fed eldest NEVER was sick as a baby. He caught one tummy flu when he was well past two, but that was it. Now, all he gets is a cold here and there and those never keep him down, but my special breast milk baby catches whatever is going around.

It's been my experience that breast milk/ attachment parenting advocates are pushy, abrasive and seek to make the choices of others seem borderline abusive and inferior...however, on the flipside, they want their choices respected, they want to be listened to, and they want to be taken seriously. If that's the case, they need to start giving what they want to get and lay off the sanctimony. I will NEVER forget that ordeal I endured in the hospital as a hormonal new (2nd time) mother being tormented by a gaggle of tit terrorists. I don't care if you dislike my diction here, that's what they were. That has really put a bad taste in my mouth towards them ever since. I believe respect is a two way street, and by and large, breast feeding extremists and advocates have ZERO respect for any choice other than their own. Look at some of their comments here. Some are even defending this picture.
edit on 12-5-2012 by HoppedUp because: Mis-spelling



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Well, here in the western world the boobophobes are the majority. This poll says 71% and I bet half of them got turned on by the photo.
shine.yahoo.com... es=news.reads&fb_ref=type%3Aread%2Cuser%3AclrfQURdnmNJ5sv1Y-7yWGDRTJU&fb_source=other_multiline&code=AQDUEk0556p7VALJui2HSk2Hv-9RlzeXvVPvo1wvfYKyjn8zO FJJy-bexT8ZYisU2wvSd6kjD2-QLSb2sIucgglACc5BxtxAPX4ciuHgTN8s40DW2y_TwW3aiN5vTG6sCBWHTNdJ2smfH6UfTYrXX0wKoNjRQFCI7slMn9jp-JVL5r3JtE--3sYNTvx13GAmem418b- Kp-Gnztzor7JrtkYC#_=_



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evanzsayz
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.

kid, you need to research on your own. You don't know what you are talking about. Ask in sex ed class.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Baby formula is definitely a racket. I regret that my mother fed me that garbage as a baby, one wonders how much healthier/stronger I would have been?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Horza
 


I believe the use of the word "ignorant" is a little harsh.

I watched many interviews on the MSM about this photo yesterday, and MD's and psychologists had varying opinions about it. It's a matter of which discipline you are drawn to; how you view it, and like anything else -documentations can be found to support most any opinion if one takes the time to look for them.

Of course, these "attachment parenting" folks take it much further; never allowing their children to be alone, and also permitting them to sleep with the parents until they are 10 or so.

Animals in the wild are not a comparable choice. Primate mothers don't have a choice. If they had access to a readily available food source for their young, which is healthier, we have no way of knowing what they might choose to do.

When I referred to the development of "teeth", I didn't mean the permanent teeth! (Yes, I saw where you were going with that. Ouch, that could make for a painful situation with a frustrated toddler). The babies should be done nurturing from the mother by the time the baby teeth are coming in, and should have acquired the strengthening of the immune system by that time. Such as it is. Nature's way, as I pointed out in my earlier post. It's actually quite obvious. What do I do with my two legs? And what should I do with my teeth?

I don't think this is a "horrible" thing to do, although I do believe it could be psychologically unhealthy in the long run. Parents do things unwittingly all the time which may later prove psychologically unhealthy, but as we see, children are quite resilient and bounce back from insults of all kinds. Thank goodness.

I do, however, believe this situation has vastly more to do with the needs of the mother than the child, and all the angry rationalizations you can dig up won't change that.

Honestly? It wouldn't surprise me if when this little boy grows up, he sues his parents for putting his picture on the cover of a magazine in this embarrassing image. Now that could really be traumatizing.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by jeantherapy
Baby formula is definitely a racket. I regret that my mother fed me that garbage as a baby, one wonders how much healthier/stronger I would have been?


True remember the scandal of growth hormones being put in milk
BPA in the plastic of feeding bottles too
Plus dangerous substances in Vaccines
Any one would think "They" do not like babys
Best cling on to Mum's breast and head for the hills.
Seriously



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
After some research and speculation on the topic, I have realized my initial shock and bewilderment was misplaced.

All primates breast feed until the permanent molars break through, which would be 5 or so in humans.
Therefore this behavior is totally normal in relation to human biology/physiology.

The only reason humans breast feeding age decreased significantly over the last few thousand years was due entirely to technological developments. Cutting/mashing tools, animal husbandry (milking cows/goats/sheep/etc).

So actually we are shocked only because we are ignorant and bias due to societal norms. However the reality is that breast feeding until around age 5 appears to be biologically consistent and entirely natural.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Just look at ourselves. We "humans".

We are blown away and shocked when we see our true original nature.

We think something must be wrong with them to act the way we did for countless millennia before we became "civilized". And who really believes we are "civilized" anyways? What a joke that is.

We don't accept our own nature, we are shocked by it. Meanwhile we thrive in unnatural settings such as in the cockpit of a jet fighter-bomber while we destroy other humans in our endless wars.

This is all messed up and backwards, and we for sure are not "civilized".
We reject our nature and embrace our destruction.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
Just look at ourselves. We "humans".

We are blown away and shocked when we see our true original nature.

We think something must be wrong with them to act the way we did for countless millennia before we became "civilized". And who really believes we are "civilized" anyways? What a joke that is.

We don't accept our own nature, we are shocked by it. Meanwhile we thrive in unnatural settings such as in the cockpit of a jet fighter-bomber while we destroy other humans in our endless wars.

This is all messed up and backwards, and we for sure are not "civilized".
We reject our nature and embrace our destruction.


It's not so much that people are "shocked" by displays like this, its more that people find them inappropriate.

Sexuality is a strange thing because to describe it verbally or in pictures also evokes it. In a sense, discussion or depiction of sexuality or the naked human body is to summon sexuality to the fore, like "magic words." there is no other topic for which this is true. Discussing the weather does not make the weather change. You can't drive a photo of an automobile. But words and images of the human body can evoke sexual feelings. This is why people are cautious about ANY display of the human body or the use of words and expressions associated with sexuality. Because it is not always appropriate in society to summon sexual feelings. They have to be reserved for certain times and places, or society cannot function effectively and it ends up hurting people.

I do find the hulllabaloo over this particular image a bit overdone. But at the same time I realize why people are made uncomfortable by it.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Leftist
 


But what then is appropriate behavior and why is a perfectly natural act inappropriate.
In some older cultures we deem primitive the sight of a naked person was seen as perfectly natural
Yet in our normal society is deemed inappropriate
I can only conclude our "Normal" society is unnatural





edit on 12-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by Leftist
 


But what then is appropriate behavior and why is a perfectly natural act inappropriate.
In some older cultures we deem primitive the sight of a naked person was seen as perfectly natural
Yet in our normal society is deemed inappropriate
I can only conclude our "Normal" society is unnatural ]


They may not have eroticized nudity but I would almost guarantee that they had other taboos surrounding sexuality.

All societies appear to have taboos of one sort or another to keep the powerful force of sexuality in check. Even if those taboos differ from society to society.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Leftist

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by Leftist
 


But what then is appropriate behavior and why is a perfectly natural act inappropriate.
In some older cultures we deem primitive the sight of a naked person was seen as perfectly natural
Yet in our normal society is deemed inappropriate
I can only conclude our "Normal" society is unnatural ]


They may not have eroticized nudity but I would almost guarantee that they had other taboos surrounding sexuality.

All societies appear to have taboos of one sort or another to keep the powerful force of sexuality in check. Even if those taboos differ from society to society.


Yes true all society's have taboos
What would happen indeed if we did not keep the powerful force of sexuality in check
People might get naked and have sex and then have babys and even breast feed them

edit on 12-5-2012 by artistpoet because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 06:35 PM
link   
I saw a documentary some time back where a woman breast fed her kids until..I want to say age 6 or so? Is that how I want it to be for my daughter? Nah..she started drinking regular milk from a sippy cup on her first birthday. Do I care if other people do it? No, you raise your kids however you see fit. You want to breast feed until age 3,5,6, that is your right as a parent to decide.Is it a proven fact that it makes children socially awkward ? Doubt it. Is there a possibility of that being the case? Sure.



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by BellaSabre
reply to post by Horza
 


I believe the use of the word "ignorant" is a little harsh.


Hi Bella,

I wasn't saying that you are an ignorant person, but when it comes to the topic of the physiological benefits of breast feeding you are ignorant of the facts. Applying your personal logic to a situation with out considering the facts only leads to assumptions and in this case your assumptions are incorrect.

Just do a quick read through those links I posted and those alone will give your a far greater insight into breast feeding than you have now.

You know thats I why I posted them ... so you can ready them

Just one other thing I need to point out



Animals in the wild are not a comparable choice. Primate mothers don't have a choice. If they had access to a readily available food source for their young, which is healthier, we have no way of knowing what they might choose to do.


This again is completely 100% incorrect. Again you are making assumptions based on your personal logic. How do you know what choices they have?


By the age of two, they begin to travel and sit independently within five meters of their mothers and this corresponds to a decrease in nursing and the onset of independent eating and play behavior (Bard 1995; Coe 1990). Not until three years of age do young chimpanzees venture more than five meters from their mothers, and between ages four and six, the period of infancy ends with weaning (Bard 1995).


Source

Chimpanzee's don't nurse their young because it is the only food source available for them.

Also a quick question - to you Bella and to other ATS members:

Do you think that children that are breast feed until 3 or more years of age are exclusively breast fed and that breast milk is their only source of nutrition and food?



posted on May, 12 2012 @ 09:25 PM
link   
reply to post by muzzleflash
 


Thank you muzzleflash ... and not for changing your mind in this debate ... but why you changed your mind.

I would love to see your string of posts from this thread pinned as an example of how ATS should, in theory, work.

1) Come in with an opinion,
2) Look at the information presented
3) Ask - Are there facts presented that I did not know about?
4) If answer yes to 3, insert facts in opinion and change accordingly



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Ignorance reigns on ATS.

The presence of teeth is not the cue to stop breastfeeding. My son got his first tooth at 3 months. I wasn't going to stop nursing him. My son has almost all his teeth now at 19 months. I'm not going to stop nursing him. When he is ready to stop then I will. The digestive system of a child is not developed at 2. They can only absorb 25 to 50 percent of the nutrition from solid foods at that age.

This anti-breastfeeding crap is a joke because most women in this country don't even breastfeed. This isn't even a real issue. Less than one percent of women in this country actually nurse past 2 years. Most women don't even nurse to 2 months let alone 2 years.



posted on May, 13 2012 @ 12:55 PM
link   
I breastfed all three of my children until they were nearly three years of age. None have a single cavity in their teeth. They are all slim and fit. None suffer from any form of depression. We are a nicely close family. We would all go to the ends of the earth for one another. I don't regret it a bit.

I also made their baby food once the breast milk wasn't enough. I made it from exactly the same food we adults (and the older children, as time went on) ate at each meal.

When I was a baby, my mother thought it was the grandest idea for her baby to grow up fast, to join the world as soon as possible. I was eating solid foods by the time I was four months old. I was potty-trained by my first birthday. Our family is not close at all. I haven't seen them in nearly twenty years and they've never come to visit me in my quarter century here.

Now in my adulthood, I have food intolerance to all the normal grains people eat (wheat, rye, barley, oats, rice), to eggs, to anything with citric acid in it (check that out - wipes out practically any fresh fruits and vegetables), to soy, and to peanuts. Eating is a very precarious thing for me.

When all is said and done, I think I would have preferred to have been breastfed.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 20  21  22    24  25 >>

log in

join