SOFT NEWS Time Magazines controversial cover photo.

[JR in Ind]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/features/parenting/homefront/bal-time-magazines-breastfeeding-cover-causes-a-stir-20120510,0,4841335.story

Just curious as to everyone's opinions on this. I am not sure how to get a pic to show up in the thread, so maybe someone else can do that.

 

[bw]

The picture doesn't offend me, and neither does the subject. The age of the kid is out toward the end of the spectrum, but if it works for them I'm ok with it.

But I tell you what, that kid is going to regret that picture.

 

[JR in Ind]

Time magazine's breast-feeding cover causes a stir

Comments
0Share0

Time magazine's recent cover on attachment parenting. (Courtesy of Time magazine / May 10, 2012)
By Sarah Kickler Kelber
The Baltimore Sun
2:40 p.m. EDT, May 10, 2012

I’m not anti-attachment parenting by any means. I’m what-works-for-my-family-works-for-us-and-what-works-for-you-works-for-you, a philosophy that is flexible but has way too many hyphens.

It happens that attachment parenting wasn’t something that worked for my family. I was interested in the idea of babywearing, but I had back issues even before I got pregnant, and parenthood hasn’t made them any better. Co-sleeping wasn’t something I was particularly interested in for a number of reasons. And since I wasn’t able to sustain breastfeeding beyond a few months for either of my children, extended breastfeeding (usually defined as beyond 1 year) was a nonissue.

Time magazine takes on the attachment parenting topic in its most recent cover story, with a very provocative cover image: a lovely young mother breastfeeding her 3-year-old son, who is standing on a chair in front of her. To be clear, I don’t mean sexually provocative (though, based on many comments I’ve read about the cover, other people consider it that way, which is a shame and a topic for a whole other post). But provoking of interest and conversation? Most definitely.

For me, there are a couple of issues with the cover. There is such a bizarre sentiment toward breastfeeding in this country, with so many people finding nursing even a new baby in public distasteful. This image, by focusing on an extreme that makes some people uncomfortable, seems to be multiplying that discomfort. What I mean is that, in an ideal world, I want people to see the image and consider and realize that breastfeeding needs to be much more accepted here, whether it’s newborns or 1-year-olds or beyond, whatever works for each family. What I’m afraid that it will do is cause some people to go, “Ew, gross,” and turn their heads away from the idea of all breastfeeding. And that’s truly unfortunate.

The other issue is the headline: “Are you mom enough?” Yes, this is supposed to be as provocative as possible, too. And obviously it’s working, since I’m writing about it. But within parenting, within motherhood, there is so much that causes you to question whether you have done enough and whether you are enough that this headline just frustrates me. And there are few issues that bring that issue of “enough” to the forefront than breastfeeding.

So for me -- and a number of my other friends, who despite lactation consultants, fenugreek supplements, bowls of oatmeal, pumping after feeding, and so on and so on into infinity, could not make breastfeeding work -- “Are you mom enough?” is just another twist of the knife, another reminder of the guilt about the whole issue. I couldn't make it work for a few months, but supermom here has been at it for a few years! Just when I think I've come to accept our feeding situation, here's something else to make me feel, well, not enough.

The bottom line is, rather than conversation, I’m afraid this cover is going to foster judgment. And there’s enough of that in parenthood.
Copyright © 2012, The Baltimore Sun

 

[JR in Ind]

My thoughts exactly. The whole breastfeeding later then the norm doesn't bother me, the pick is maybe a tad over the top...but, that poor kid! In 5 to 10 years if I were him, I would hope none of these pics resurface.

 

[mzkitty]

I wouldn't have done that cover. That's just me.

I guess she's trying to make a point, but it could have been done more *delicately* if they really had to show a 3-year-old nursing.

 

[bw]

In 5 to 10 years if I were him, I would hope none of these pics resurface.

Well, the cover of Time is not exactly like filing it in the family shoebox. Yeah, I think it will resurface, over and over and over. When he's a teen his classmates will paste it on their lockers. When he's twenty his co-workers will leave a copy taped to his wall. His prospective girlfriends will hear all about it, and the ex-girlfriends will rate his prowess in bed by comparison to this shot. Oh he's gonna be dealing with this for a LOOOOOOOOOONG time.

 

[Hansa44]

I have absolutely nothing against breastfeeding. I did it. But this magazine cover looks like child porn.

There are millions of pictures that could have been taken, but this isn't one of them.

 

[Dobbin]

"Time Magazine Man of the Year 2012?"

Dobbin

 

[BoatGuy]

Breastfeeding is one of the most natural acts in the entire world, and babies don't choose when they get hungry. That said, modesty can be virtuous. If the mother simply doesn't care about the sensitivities of others, then she is probably trying to make a statement, and that would be wrong. On the other hand, I don't think a mother, not trying to draw attention to herself (whether it is noticed or not) and just trying to nurture her child, should be chastised.

As for the choice of child, I do find it curious that they would pick a child who is quite obviously very close to, or outside, what many might consider a norm. So, I would ask if TIME is trying to make a statement and engage a controversy. If so, they have succeeded. Are they trying to say that breastfeeding is normal and should be allowed in public? Or, are they saying that older children should be considered the norm? I think that they are confusing whatever statement they are trying to make.

JMHO

 

[Abdon]

"Are you Mammory enough?"

 

[brokenwings]

The photo is very distasteful, I think. The child looks much older than three. Just my opinion. I don't think a child that age should still be breast feeding. I breast fed so I think it is a wonderful thing if done for a BABY!

 

[old pirate]

there is a normal time for being weened. i believe that child is way past that time.

that being said, i'm a little hungry, can i have some.

 

[MtnGal]

For a magazine cover I find it wrong on many levels.

 

[Up and Away]

When a child can take his/her nourishment fully by mouth they should. I'm not saying rush the process but when it does happen, let the child detach. Sucking his mothers breast for comfort at that age and size doesn't seem like a good idea, but that's just me. (I breast fed for 11 months)

 

[Satanta]

I dunno.

The kid looks like he is enjoying it and frankly I still like to breast feed.

It's Time Magazine-aren't they the same ones that called O 'Man of the Year' a month after he was "Elected"?

 

[Troke]

Hmmm! I am kind of wondering about Mommy. Is there a Daddy around? If not, maybe we are wandering into Freudian territory here.

 

[bw]

maybe we are wandering into Freudian territory here.

Shucks Troke, we've all been in Freudian territory so long we got tents and cots and firepits set up. We're fixin to smoke some cigars. Join us?

 

[Troke]

Freud knew all about cigars too.

 

[DennisRGH]

That child is wayyyyy too old to be breastfeeding. He looks 5-6 years old. That's absurd. This is more for HER comfort, afaiak.

And the picture is wayyyyy inappropriate for a magazine cover. duhhhhhh.

It's not just a slippery slope that western culture is on, it's a free fall into the abyss. There is NO parachute without repentence.

 

[Vector]

Breastfeeding is one of the most natural acts in the entire world,

Please don't take this as a personal affront BoatGuy, because it is not you I take issue with, but the use of this statement to justify bad, offensive public behavior.

Yes breastfeeding IS a natural act, but then again so are urinating and defacating. If the law, and common decency require that we perform acts of bodily waste elimination in private, why is it not the same for breast-feeding? Because, I have heard it said, that taking a whizz or a dump require exposing the genitals. Well, a woman's breasts are sex organs, too. No, you say? Then why are they required to be covered in public? Why, even under cover do many women go to great lengths to accentuate their breasts' existence on their bodies? Tight, to way-too-tight clothing, cleavage-exposing necklines, translucent, to damn near transparent outerwear that reveals brassieres (or not) underneath. Don't get me started about the bras....push up, push apart, lift-and-separate, size enhancing bras. When the woman wears one in public at all. None of this has anything to do with infant nutrition...infant creation perhaps, but no baby benefits from its mother wearing a Wonder Bra. I was in The Domain this past weekend here in Austin, a shopping mall, and the place looked like a cross between a Victoria's Secret catalogue photo shoot and Playboy magazine. And I am unaware of any industry, cottage or otherwise, involved in enhancing the look of a man's "gentleman's area."

No, public breast-feeders, and their advocates are pure-D, flaming hypocrites. They know the human female breast has a very strong sexual component. This is their way of waving it in our faces (pun intended) with impunity.

 

[Palmetto]

Oedipus Complex

 

[Cardinal]

Freud knew all about cigars too.

So does Bill.

The pic is in really poor taste (forgive the pun) and maybe Time needs the Xtra sales$ ?

 

[topcat46]

I wonder if you would get charged for child porn if the cops found that picture on your computer without the Time background and if they found nothing else.

 

[BoatGuy]

Please don't take this as a personal affront BoatGuy, because it is not you I take issue with, but the use of this statement to justify bad, offensive public behavior.

Yes breastfeeding IS a natural act, but then again so are urinating and defacating. If the law, and common decency require that we perform acts of bodily waste elimination in private, why is it not the same for breast-feeding? Because, I have heard it said, that taking a whizz or a dump require exposing the genitals. Well, a woman's breasts are sex organs, too. No, you say? Then why are they required to be covered in public? Why, even under cover do many women go to great lengths to accentuate their breasts' existence on their bodies? Tight, to way-too-tight clothing, cleavage-exposing necklines, translucent, to damn near transparent outerwear that reveals brassieres (or not) underneath. Don't get me started about the bras....push up, push apart, lift-and-separate, size enhancing bras. When the woman wears one in public at all. None of this has anything to do with infant nutrition...infant creation perhaps, but no baby benefits from its mother wearing a Wonder Bra. I was in The Domain this past weekend here in Austin, a shopping mall, and the place looked like a cross between a Victoria's Secret catalogue photo shoot and Playboy magazine. And I am unaware of any industry, cottage or otherwise, involved in enhancing the look of a man's "gentleman's area."

No, public breast-feeders, and their advocates are pure-D, flaming hypocrites. They know the human female breast has a very strong sexual component. This is their way of waving it in our faces (pun intended) with impunity.

Well said. And certainly no affront was taken. But, my point that breastfeeding was natural wasn't really meant to be the reasoning for my statement... just a part of it. Yes, we now consider the female breast to be very sexualized. But, it wasn't always that way. In fact, it's only been since perhaps Victorian times, that the breast was to be hidden from view til the present. Before that, and even during it, it was common practice to breastfeed in public, and was not considered to be a task that had to be hidden. So, a change took place once, and maybe it's happening again. You might even be able to make the argument that the current level of breast sexualization is due to the fact that it was removed from everyday sight. But, that's just a guess and I have nothing to support that.

 

[Satanta]

I amunaware of any industry, cottage or otherwise, involved in enhancing the look of a man's "gentleman's area."

Sure there are-did you miss the 80's and 90's rockers like 'Poison' and 'Def Leppard'?

I can put you in touch with some models/photogs that use some of those clothes in photoshoots if you need places to shop?

 

[TerryK]

Once you're ole enough to start wearing camo pants breasts represent something different than your next meal.

 

[tanstaafl]

Looks like a new candidate photo for this "poster":

 

[mzkitty]

That child is wayyyyy too old to be breastfeeding. He looks 5-6 years old. That's absurd. This is more for HER comfort, afaiak.

And the picture is wayyyyy inappropriate for a magazine cover. duhhhhhh.

It's not just a slippery slope that western culture is on, it's a free fall into the abyss. There is NO parachute without repentence.

Her, Octomom, the guy with the children on his computer, and who is reporting it all? That's right the MSM. They are shoving sex in our faces and they know they are doing it. Just more stuff to get the sheeple conditioned, I say.


*ack*

 

[Richard]

what is the point of this cover, TM sucks

 

[William]

You know I'm 60 something and I still like tit in my mouth........... sorry had to do it

 

[Chair Warmer]

Just curious as to everyone's opinions on this.

I'm horrified.

I agree with the other posters' comments that breastfeeding should be for nutrition.
That kid is waaay past the point of needing breastmilk for nutrition.

The pic is teetering on sexual abuse / kid porn territory.

 

[Gercarson]

Oedipus Complex

As "they" say: "Oedipus, smedipus . . . as long as he loves his mother".

 

[Hansa44]

I wonder if you would get charged for child porn if the cops found that picture on your computer without the Time background and if they found nothing else.

That is an excellent question. That guy may have just won his case thanks to Time.

 

[VesperSparrow]

This is EFFING SICK and somewhere in a basement some old guy is wacking off to this image...if it was MY kid I'd knock his lilly white ass off my boob...and on to whoever approves of this disgusting act. And no, you don't go sticking a kids mouth that age onto some 'woman's tit just to sell mag covers. Yall know this isn't right. Jokes aside.

 

[Amazed]

I think when you tell a kid to pull up a chair to breast feed, you've maybe gone a bit far.

 

[Oilpatch Hand]

When a child can take his/her nourishment fully by mouth they should. I'm not saying rush the process but when it does happen, let the child detach. Sucking his mothers breast for comfort at that age and size doesn't seem like a good idea, but that's just me. (I breast fed for 11 months)

Well, the kid in the Time picture looks to be about 11 years old. The youngster might want to consider growing up sometime. Then again...every Halloween, we get trick-or-treating "children" who saunter up to the door knocking off their five o'clock shadows with their electric razors while chomping on their stogies.

 

[kytom]

My thoughts exactly. The whole breastfeeding later then the norm doesn't bother me, the pick is maybe a tad over the top...but, that poor kid! In 5 to 10 years if I were him, I would hope none of these pics resurface.

they will! you can be sure of it!

 

[timbo]

I wanna know one thing: Is he standing up?

 

[CountryboyinGA]

when our cows refuse to wean their calves we sell them for beef.

just sayin.

CB

 

[Chair Warmer]

I wanna know one thing: Is he standing up?

From the article;

Time magazine takes on the attachment parenting topic in its most recent cover story, with a very provocative cover image: a lovely young mother breastfeeding her 3-year-old son, who is standing on a chair in front of her.