Have You Seen the Attention-Grabbing New TIME Cover?

Have You Seen the Attention-Grabbing New TIME Cover?

www.theblaze.com

Time magazine is out with its latest cover, one that’s sure to get its fair share of attention. Headlined “Are You Mom Enough?”, it features a blonde, skinny jean-wearing woman — and a preschool-age boy unmistakably latched on to her breast.

(visit the link for the full news article)

It would probably be against the terms of service (TOS) here to actually post the image of the latest Time Magazine cover. It shows a boy, clearly too old to be breastfeeding, sucking on the breast of a woman, who is presumably the boys mother.

To me, this seem like child abuse and is clearly inappropriate. The mother, photographer and publisher should be held accountable, but I'm sure they won't be.

www.theblaze.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit: Oh, sorry forget. Child pornography is now legal in NY.


edit 2: And yes, there's blame for the Blaze too, for sensationalizing an already sensationalized cover. (Thanks for that, stanguilles7.)

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
a boy, clearly too old to be breastfeeding, sucking on the breast of a woman, who is presumably the boys mother.

By actually taking the time to read the article, I learn that the woman is the mother of the three year old.
A bit unusual, but not remarkably so.

That just looks........strange.


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

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?

One more step in the continued pussification of our youth. Its no wonder that all of the little snowflakes are coming up with entitlement issues and a lack of survivability. These kids wouldn't have lasted a day in my neighborhood when I was a kid. These kids need to be told NO once in a while and have their asses slapped when they talk back. Time magazine is only giving these crappy parents validation for their ridiculous behavior.

Wouldn't that image be considered a form of child porn?

Breast feeding for a year sure even 18 months.

But through 3 years? WTF

That is just messed up. I don't know what else to say.

Our society is sick. So sick that the aberrant is now depicted in the MSM.

It is nothing to be proud of.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Ha!

And yuck.

Im glad Time is focused on the important issues. That is way more important than the French election

From your link," The mother pictured on the cover is Jamie Lynne Grumet of Los Angeles and her 3-year-old son.


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.

Dr Bill Sears, whom his pediatric patients call "Dr Bill ( if that isn't a red flag )" is the leading wacko in attachment parenting. I pity her son and the other children that have become twisted in this farce of child rearing. Without years of therapy, they will succumb to further perverse ideations.

Erm, that would be a charming image if it was a real baby breast feeding but this child is way too old IMO, fine if the mother wants to continue the practice - that's her right but please don't force this on the public.
This will be staring at us from every grocery and pharmacy checkout.
Another non-issue for the plebes to argue about while the banking mafia goes on their merry way.
I guess we're supposed to just "suck it up" huh?
So who's the real boob here then?

I don't think breasts are pornographic in any way myself but I don't set public standards of decency.
National Geo has been getting away with it for years.

reply to post by alfa1


True, some doctors recommend breastfeeding until age 4. I don't really think the act of breast feeding an "older" child is shocking...but putting a picture of it on the cover of a mag is really low. I bf my girls until 2 1/2..

Yeah that's pretty f'ing wrong...if he can stand on his own...little to old for tittie.....

Oh well....do I actually care?...No...I do not care....if people want to be stupid...let them be stupid...it is not your job to police them....nor mine...nor anyone else....emotion is what it is....if you give into it...you just lost about 50 IQ points

Reply to post by Asktheanimals

Naive nudity is entirely different. I don't recall ever seeing a native mother nursing a 3-year-old.

This is abnormal.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen
It would probably be against the terms of service (TOS) here to actually post the image of the latest Time Magazine cover. It shows a boy, clearly too old to be breastfeeding, sucking on the breast of a woman, who is presumably the boys mother.

To me, this seem like child abuse and is clearly inappropriate. The mother, photographer and publisher should be held accountable, but I'm sure they won't be.

www.theblaze.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit: Oh, sorry forget. Child pornography is now legal in NY.

edit on 5/10/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)

edit 2: And yes, there's blame for the Blaze too, for sensationalizing an already sensationalized cover. (Thanks for that, stanguilles7.)

edit on 5/10/12 by AnonymousCitizen because: (no reason given)

Child abuse? Really? I would have LOVED to be that kid.

Anyone who thinks an image of a woman breastfeeding is 'inappropriate' likely needs a lot of safety gear when they leave the house. It is one of the most natural, normal things around.

Originally posted by AnonymousCitizen

. It shows a boy, clearly too old to be breastfeeding, sucking on the breast of a woman, who is presumably the boys mother.

'presumably'? One does not need to 'presume', sir. The article states she is his mother.

"Presume-Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability" Breastfeed.

Also, 3 is not too old to breastfeed. It's not common, but it's also not unheard of. Many mothers begin weening in the twos, but still allow the child to breastfeed, on occasion into their 3s. Since the Time article is behind a pay wall, we really cant know the context of when and how she breastfeeds.

To me, this seem like child abuse and is clearly inappropriate. The mother, photographer and publisher should be held accountable, but I'm sure they won't be.

Child abuse? Seriously? Would it be puppy abuse to take a picture of a puppy breastfeeding from its mother?

I think feeding a kid soy-based formula is probably closer to child abuse than giving them the milk their mother supplies just for them.

Does femininity frighten you? Were you perhaps not breastfed? Sometimes gay men are scared of boobs. Have you looked into that?

I lost interest in Time magazine years ago and this just reaffirms my decision to dump them. With all that is happening in the world, that's all they can come up with.

3 year olds breastfeeding?? Not right!! When my kids were 3 they were in Pre school and eating solid food, burping and speaking like most three year olds. To make it a cover image seen by all at t the checkout counter even worse.

Time has jumped the shark again!

I personally feel this is too old for breast feeding and have a lot of arguments against this parenting philosophy.

But I seriously start to be more concerned when I hear people calling breast feeding "porn"!!!!
Makes me wonder about them more then the mother and child in the photo.
Maybe it is just because I live in Europe, but americans' squeemishness about seeing breast feeding in general (even with tiny babies) and making suggestions that the breast is a sex organ, is pretty sick in itself.

I don't care that the woman is breast feeding her child as it is her right, but to put a photo like this on a magzine that will readily viewable at many locations is uncalled for.