Have You Seen the Attention-Grabbing New TIME Cover?

Originally posted by Gazrok
I don't have a problem seeing breast-feeding. Indeed, it is a very natural thing. However, once a toddler, then no, it's a pretty simple social norm to grasp.

So, to the 19yr old who lays with his mom and talks...do you then latch onto her boob? No? Why not? Because it's not socially acceptable, right? Exactly....you're too old for it, and so is this toddler. I'll bet the kid in the photo is coddled in every way imaginable, all because his mom doesn't want to let go, and realize he isn't her little baby anymore, he's a toddler.

Hopefully, some of his playmates will see him doing this soon, then razz him so bad, he realizes it isn't acceptable for a kid his age.

The article itself is about "attachment parenting". I would like to hear some thoughts about that. Is it good for the child?

No.

Is it just selfishness on the side of the parent?

Absolutely.

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

(I'll bet the kid in the photo is coddled in every way imaginable, all because his mom doesn't want to let go, and realize he isn't her little baby anymore, he's a toddler.

Hopefully, some of his playmates will see him doing this soon, then razz him so bad, he realizes it isn't acceptable for a kid his age.)

and you're a forum moderator on a site who's motto is "deny ignorance?" You jump to the extreme conclusion that because the mother still breast feeds she coddles him in every way imaginable? you don't even entertain the possibility that the breast feeding is more of a tool. what if she only does it once a day or less? what if she explains constantly that its only for food and that he'll be done soon. You seem to think a three year old is cognizant enough to know what is appropriate and not for his age level, yet he can't discern the difference between breast feeding for sustenance and love making (or whatever you seem to think breast feeding is)?
so a mother who breast feeds for the first one to two years is a loving responsible mother, but any longer and she's a selfish b#tch who doesn't deserve to raise her own child?!

You guys cray.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Okay, let's add another dimension to this fine discussion.

The article itself is about "attachment parenting". I would like to hear some thoughts about that. Is it good for the child? Is it just selfishness on the side of the parent?

My young son and I have a great bond.

We do scouting, chores, games together.

As a parent though, I also teach, love, scold, punish, make bedtimes, check homework, assign chores, and give hugs.

I guess it's all in how the individual sees parenting.

To each his own.

Originally posted by MisterFister103
That just looks........strange.


Super weird if they're paid 'models'. Even weirder if it's really a mom/son combo.

this could be the start of an incest epidemic.

why have they both not been arrested for public indecency and immoral behavior.

why has the NYPD not acted.

why has the child protection services not arrested the mother and taken the child into protective custody?

why is filth shown to us?

why is this being allowed.

we should contact congress right now and demand action by jugdes.

It's clearly the liberals that are to blame here! Lock them all up!

Man......what will those pesky liberals want next? Freedom?!

Originally posted by Violater1
Another example of liberal, over the top, child abuse, that is coming out of Kalifornia.
I'm sooo glad I transferred out of that satanic ridden, hedonistic land of Babylonia.

Hahahah!

reply to post by Violater1


I'm a liberal and that photo has nothing to do with the word liberal. That pic is messed up.

reply to post by celestialpink


My sons were between 1-2 years, 4/5 of them, and I used blankets to nurse anywhere I wished to.

I think it's pretty strange, and I bet that kid has a few people laughing at him in the future, but some of the talk in this thread is way over the top. Especially when "liberals" are being blamed for it. Seriously.

It's sometimes like everything has to turn into political point scoring.

reply to post by AnonymousCitizen

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Okay, let's add another dimension to this fine discussion.

The article itself is about "attachment parenting". I would like to hear some thoughts about that. Is it good for the child? Is it just selfishness on the side of the parent?

Disclosure: I subscribe to Attachment Parenting.

Dr. Sears has some very valuable, common-sense and compassionate advice for child-rearing. I have all of his books. His wife is an RN and his sons are pediatricians as well. They have many years of collective wisdom between them. In a world of parents focused on themselves and their careers, he basically asserts that you can't possibly spoil a child under two years of age.

Attachment parenting advocates doing all that is necessary to make your child feel loved and cared for in order to instill a bond of trust that carries into later childhood and teen years. I'm seeing the fruits of this with my 9 year old now. Where many of my friends and neighbors are beginning to feel the pangs of pre-teen rebellion in their children of this age, my child still essentially respects and adheres to our family principles. Why? Because he knows he can count on us. We put him and our family first. That's the core of Attachment Parenting, not breast-feeding, though that is an important first element. Breast-feeding your baby on demand teaches the baby that he or she can count on the mother. This makes the child feel secure in their growth and learning. Think Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. The child will be more confident and self-assured and less willing to abandon personal family values as he or she grows and experiences the world.

Dr. Sear's popularity is more of a reaction to the counterintuitive methods of child-rearing that took hold following the women's liberation movement - a time when mother's stopped staying at home and entered the work force. This change brought with it new ideas of parenting such as scheduling babies sleep time (LoL!), putting very young children in daycare and raising latch key kids. Lots of Gen Xer's, myself included, were raised this way and we can see the pitfalls and failed results.

Dr. Sears came along and basically said it's okay to be both liberated and a good mother - they don't have to be mutually exclusive. Happy Moms = happy babies. Happy babies = happy Moms

As to the Time cover, I think it's farcical. Highlighting the most extreme, worst case scenario of Attachment Parenting. More Helicopter Parent than Attachment Parenting. BUT, it's easy to see how Gen X and Gen Y parents who weren't very well nurtured or loved by their own self-involved Boomer Moms or parents would over- compensate and somewhat twist Dr. Sears's advice to the extreme.

Is he mentally challenged or something? By three most kids are already mastering the sippy cup in my experience....

reply to post by Violater1


I didn't mean images of breast feeding - just bare breasts which National Geo has been showing for a long time.
How you can compare breasts to sex organs is a little beyond me.
There's no comparison there.
The old saying goes: "there's no such thing as a dirty book, it's just the way you read it"

You don't see animals feeding their young that long. They snap at their young after a certain period of time because it's time to be weaned. And they do it young.

Something is wrong here.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by TKDRL
Is he mentally challenged or something? By three most kids are already mastering the sippy cup in my experience....

here's an earth shattering, mind bending concept for you...
what if the child drinks from... wait for it... BOTH?!
you could, conceivably, use breast feeding as a tool for developing a maternal bond and strengthening immune and digestive systems while also feeding the child solid foods and drinks from cups.
is that too advanced a concept for you? some people actually devote their lives to parenting instead of treating it like a hobby or a chore.
we do not live with this family. we do not know the motives or the conduct of the mother. to assume you do is insanity and will lead to you neglecting SOMETHING in your own life in favor of prying into someone else's.
my daughter is playing with her doll house right now as i type this. am I a terrible parent because she's three and still playing with toys? i mean, at some point, won't she have to grow up and realize that life sucks and all you should do is work and pay taxes and die? should i smash all of her toys and burn all of her dolls because she needs to be ready for the real world?! also, she made two of her dolls hug and kiss the other day. is this sexual misconduct?! should i punish her for making her dolls kiss?!

reply to post by RicoMarston

so a mother who breast feeds for the first one to two years is a loving responsible mother, but any longer and she's a selfish b#tch who doesn't deserve to raise her own child?!

You're getting closer. No, she isn't a selfish b#tch, but she is selfish. And no, I never said she doesn't deserve to raise her child. I'm the LAST person to ever suggest taking a child away from a family. That should only be done if the child is being mentally, sexually, or physically abused, and as a LAST resort. The state agencies that do this thing are the absolute infringement on our rights as citizens, and are immune from the checks and balance system all other government agencies must obey.

I don't think that breastfeeding past the first two years is mental abuse, but it is pushing the line. I'm not speaking from ignorance here. I personally know a kid who I grew up with, who was breastfed until he was FIVE, and he continued to have all kinds of social and sexual identity issues well into his teens (last time I saw him). And yes, his mom continued to coddle him in every way, seeing him as her little baby, even going so far as to MAKE him larger sized kid style clothing once he got too old to get it off the shelf. Now, was THAT the cause, or were there others? I don't claim to know, but I have to think that this very unusual practice somewhat influenced this.

Being a moderator doesn't exempt me from having an opinion, and my posts in this thread are just that, my own personal opinion, not that of staff.

With all the talk of tolerance of other aspects and choices in life, I'm surprised at how much people are offended and disagree with what they interpret the situation to be from one photo.

Maybe she nurses once in a while, for comfort or solace ~ doubtful it's primarily for food by this age. But what do I know - maybe the child has a digestive disorder and allergies and has trouble with solid foods.

Maybe he's on the young side of 3, maybe he's about to turn 4 who knows - My husband is 6'4" and I'm 5'7" we have tall children, so who am I to judge age by height?

With all the scientific and anthropological observations on breastfeeding in history, there is a better than good chance that she is a perfectly respectable mother, making sound choices for the needs of her child, rather than the emotionally scarred, sexually perverted, child destroying monster and her whiny spoiled brat that many people are assuming they are.

I applaud her for being willing to stand up for something she believes in. And I support her choice to do so whether or not I agree with it.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
Okay, let's add another dimension to this fine discussion.

The article itself is about "attachment parenting". I would like to hear some thoughts about that. Is it good for the child? Is it just selfishness on the side of the parent?

I think attached parenting is very good - - up to a point. Anything can be done right or wrong (taken to extreme).

I'm on my 3rd generation in child raising.

I raised my 2 daughters in the Dr. Spock era. Helped raise a grandson who is now 18. Am now helping raise a 4 and 12 year old.

I have changed my own viewpoints over time.

I carried the 4 year old in a sling close to my body (when he wasn't awake and active) up until he was too heavy for me to carry. He's never had a crib.

Often a mom feeding an older child is because they had another baby and they don't want to just cut the older child off.

So yes I support it - - BUT - children should be encouraged to become independent and have their own interests.

Every child is different - - so the separation really depends on the child and how that child can naturally grow socially.

Originally posted by rtyfx
You don't see animals feeding their young that long. They snap at their young after a certain period of time because it's time to be weaned. And they do it young.

Something is wrong here.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

This might help. I don't think we should compare ourselves so much to the habits of kittens or puppies.

Examining the animal kingdom indicates that extended breastfeeding is a natural function. In Katherine Dettwyler's article, "A Time to Wean," she discusses weaning habits of mammals, especially those of primates. She looks at a number of factors that may influence the age of weaning for these primates (quadrupling of birth weight, attainment of one-third adult weight, gestation length, and dental eruption) and evaluates what the human equivalent would be for weaning according to these factors.

For example, for humankind's closest relatives, the chimpanzee and the gorilla, the duration of breastfeeding is six times the length of gestation. "Based on these comparisons, an estimated natural age at weaning for humans would be a minimum of six times gestational length, or four-and-a-half years" (Dettwyler 1995). Another thing that was considered in her study was the fact that many primates wean their offspring when their permanent molars come in, which for humans occurs around five and a half or six years of age. Adult immune competence for humans occurs around six years old, "suggesting that throughout our recent evolutionary past, the active immunities provided by breast milk were normally available to the child until about this age."

Dettwyler ultimately concludes: Non human primate data suggest that human children are designed to receive all the benefits of breast milk and breastfeeding for an absolute minimum of two and a half years, and an apparent upper limit of around seven years.

Human history supports Dettwyler's studies. Nursing into toddlerhood was a common, natural occurrence. Soranus and Galen, for example, were two Roman doctors who wrote what was to remain the standard Western reference on infant care until the 18th century. Galen believed complete weaning shouldn't occur until the child turned three, and Soranus said not until a child had all his baby teeth should he be weaned (Huggins 2007). Clearly if extended breastfeeding was harmful, it would have negatively impacted the human race. "Any serious harmful effects of long-term nursing would have crippled the entire ancient world" (Bumgarner 2000).

bold is my emphasis

source

And its only for the US edition.

www.time.com...

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by RicoMarston

 

so a mother who breast feeds for the first one to two years is a loving responsible mother, but any longer and she's a selfish b#tch who doesn't deserve to raise her own child?!

You're getting closer. No, she isn't a selfish b#tch, but she is selfish. And no, I never said she doesn't deserve to raise her child. I'm the LAST person to ever suggest taking a child away from a family. That should only be done if the child is being mentally, sexually, or physically abused, and as a LAST resort. The state agencies that do this thing are the absolute infringement on our rights as citizens, and are immune from the checks and balance system all other government agencies must obey.

I don't think that breastfeeding past the first two years is mental abuse, but it is pushing the line. I'm not speaking from ignorance here. I personally know a kid who I grew up with, who was breastfed until he was FIVE, and he continued to have all kinds of social and sexual identity issues well into his teens (last time I saw him). And yes, his mom continued to coddle him in every way, seeing him as her little baby, even going so far as to MAKE him larger sized kid style clothing once he got too old to get it off the shelf. Now, was THAT the cause, or were there others? I don't claim to know, but I have to think that this very unusual practice somewhat influenced this.

Being a moderator doesn't exempt me from having an opinion, and my posts in this thread are just that, my own personal opinion, not that of staff.

oh, I know they're your own opinions. it just makes me a tad nervous to see you assuming so much about how this mother raises her child based on one image. and an image produced by photogs and editors in order to sell the highest number of magazines.
you're certainly entitled to your opinions, but don't act like you're not being a bit presumptuous here. we simply do not know if the mother is careful to counter this coddling with some other form of independence-building.
the kid you're talking about may have been influenced by the breast feeding and the coddling, but i guarantee he would have been a little femmy and a little weird anyway. I was NOT coddled whatsoever as a child and i've dealt with the "wait, you're not gay are you?" stuff all my life. There's Alphas and Betas in the male race and i proudly count myself among the latter.

when i'm on the exact opposite side of an issue with somebody, i like to find a place where we both agree. I'm glad to hear you say that children should only be removed from their family home in the most extreme cases and as a last resort.

reply to post by celestialpink


I agree.

I breast fed my oldest until about 18 months or so, and that was really just at nap or night-time. It's likely the same for this Mom.

It's easy for me to see why Attachment Parenting is under-attack. It's been around for a while - at least ten years by my own experience - but, now, opting to be a stay at home Mom is a right not afforded to the middle-class anymore. It's a privilege of the wealthy so making it seem eccentric and kooky benefits the 1% who want us all to keep slaving away at our crappy jobs with no benefits and out-source our child-rearing to the State.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I think (but you may want to research)..my dr told me that unless there is a problem..there will be enough milk to sufficiently feed the child..no matter the age. Probably getting into TMI but here it is..I have small breast! Even while preg. and breast feeding. They were just a tad bigger right after I delivered but after about a week they went back to normal..I breastfed for 2 1/2 years and never had a problem with the kids not gaining or wanting to supplement feed. So I think breast milk production will keep up with demand. As long as the mother keeps pumping or feeding the milk never goes away..