Time Magazine

brianlux

EdsonNascimento wrote:

I'm actually a breast feeding advocate (not to that age, but whatever). But, how is that not child pornography?

I totally agree. I can't believe this is an actual Time cover. Are we sure this is not some photo shopped jinx? If it's the real cover- bad on Time mag.

hedonist

_ wrote:

The kid is THREE, not 6 or 7. The World Health Organization (among others) recommends that all babies be breastfed AT LEAST to the age of 2. Supplementation with solid foods should begin at six months, but breastfeeding should still continue even after they start eating solid foods.

Actually, I just saw on the news that he's four years old...but still. It's not so much the age issue - what do I know anyway? I've never been in that position - but there's something about him on the stepstool and them overall. Strikes me as...off. Unnatural, and not maternal.

_

hedonist wrote:

_ wrote:

The kid is THREE, not 6 or 7. The World Health Organization (among others) recommends that all babies be breastfed AT LEAST to the age of 2. Supplementation with solid foods should begin at six months, but breastfeeding should still continue even after they start eating solid foods.

Actually, I just saw on the news that he's four years old...but still. It's not so much the age issue - what do I know anyway? I've never been in that position - but there's something about him on the stepstool and them overall. Strikes me as...off. Unnatural, and not maternal.

I think that's kind of the problem/point... that something that IS so totally natural & maternal is so often seen in our society as unnatural, not maternal, and off. We need a paradigm shift regarding breastfeeding if we want to optimize the health of our children - and that's going to require exposing people to images like these until they become normalized.

stardust1976

_ wrote:

I think that's kind of the problem/point... that something that IS so totally natural & maternal is so often seen in our society as unnatural, not maternal, and off. We need a paradigm shift regarding breastfeeding if we want to optimize the health of our children - and that's going to require exposing people to images like these until they become normalized.

They aren't going to become normalized. Breastfeeding is wonderful and should be encouraged wherever possible
but this is an extreme. No matter how often the image is shown, the fact of the matter is, most people find it a little off putting. And let's not forget how often breastfeeding is not possible.

At one point in our evolutionary lifespan, breastfeeding for extended periods of time was a necessity. Today it is not. Yes, breastfeeding is the preferred choice for newborn infants and babies. But toddlers have a much much bigger variety of food available to them now, than they did even 100 years ago, let alone thousands. We are able to get the nutrients we need in a variety of ways, whereas earlier people had to rely on the crops that were in season at the time. Some formulas have better nutrients for active toddlers than breastfeeding can provide.

Breastfeeding is, as I said, a beautiful thing. I have 4 children and to some extent, I breastfed them all. My eldest daughter was switched to a formula that I had to buy on a prescription from the chemist because she was intolerant to not just breastmilk, and ordinary formula, but also soy as well. I tried for three months to continue to breastfeed here, but her health was being put in jeopardy because of the breastmilk. The second one I fed for 6 months, and then put her on formula because MY health was being jeopardised by feeding her - the exhaustion factor should NEVER be undervalued. The third one I breastfeed exclusively until she was 1. She didn't want food, although it was offered to her all the time. Then at 1 she weened herself. I could not have, and wouldn't wanted to have forced her to keep breastfeeding. The fourth one was weened at 3 months because I got mastitis so severely that I spent 4 days in hospital on an IV having extremely strong antibiotics pumped through my system. THere is no way he could have continued to be breastfed.

Most people in society who have had children, understand that given the chance, children will usually ween themselves, somewhere between 12 and 24 months. Forcing a child to continue feeding beyond the timeframe that they themselves set, would be far more detrimental to their health, in my opinion, than allowing them to stop breastfeeding. And you will find that most mothers are quite happy to have their body back to themselves as well. It takes an ENORMOUS amount of energy to successfully carry a pregnancy to term, and then breastfeed a baby. Add to that the toll sleep deprivation takes on the body, and the demands of caring for other children, and you have a recipe for an exhausted mother, and that is not beneficial to the child OR the quality of the breastmilk they are receiving. And also remember that alcohol and most medications will pass through to breastmilk, so whatever the mother is taking, the child is taking too - this puts a fair amount of restriction onto what is already an incredibly hard job.

Having had 4 children, I can quite honestly say that I would not want a 2 year old, or 3 or 4 or older, child's mouth on my breast. It's not necessary and is disturbing to watch. I saw a woman in a supermarket pushing a trolley with a child sitting in the seat - he would have been around 3. He lifted his mother's top while she was pushing the trolley, and began to suck at her breast. This is a disturbing image. It is not a natural image. The child is old enough to be getting milk from another source, and you can not tell me that not breastfeeding is harmful to the child.

In my humble opinion, people who breastfeed for that much of an extended timeframe definitely have boundary issues. At some point, you as a mother, need to let your child grow and detach from you. It's a natural progression. And I am not talking about the people whose children at 2 or 3 still have a night-time breastfeed - this is a security blanket for a child essentially, and acts as a natural progression for the child to ween themselves. But breastfeeding a child that is big enough to eat with utensils is not normal.

And just as a sidenote, in case anyone was going to bring up the idea that extended breastfeeding is a natural alternative to contraception, because it stops your body ovulating: that only works for a small amount of time. You must be EXCLUSIVELY breastfeeding more than 3 or 4 times a day for you to even have a chance at this being a successful method of contraception. And even then, it's not reliable. A woman can ovulate while breastfeeding, and this can happen (and very often does), within 2 - 3 months of giving birth. Sometimes as little as 6 weeks after giving birth, regardless of whether she is breastfeeding or not. And it is NOT recommended for a woman to breastfeed while she is pregnant because of the reduction in quality of breastmilk, as well as the physical toll that takes on her.

Just my opinion, but there you have it.

EdsonNascimento

_ wrote:

hedonist wrote:

_ wrote:

The kid is THREE, not 6 or 7. The World Health Organization (among others) recommends that all babies be breastfed AT LEAST to the age of 2. Supplementation with solid foods should begin at six months, but breastfeeding should still continue even after they start eating solid foods.

Actually, I just saw on the news that he's four years old...but still. It's not so much the age issue - what do I know anyway? I've never been in that position - but there's something about him on the stepstool and them overall. Strikes me as...off. Unnatural, and not maternal.

I think that's kind of the problem/point... that something that IS so totally natural & maternal is so often seen in our society as unnatural, not maternal, and off. We need a paradigm shift regarding breastfeeding if we want to optimize the health of our children - and that's going to require exposing people to images like these until they become normalized.

What stardust said.

But, I wanted to add - you are confusing 2 things - breastfeeding acceptance and the breast feeding of a grown child.

My wife breast fed all my kids until about 1. (And as stardust says - you can get pregnant. As a matter of fact, you will have no problems weening your child once you do. We were trying, and that's how we found out with our 2nd. Our oldest suddenly stopped one day. Seemed curious, but whatever. A couple weeks later tested and bingo!!! The breast milk changes when you are pregnant, so in all likelihood if the child is old enough, they will discover the change before you do. Sorry for the aside).

Yes, as a society we need to be more tolerant of breast feeding (though it can be done discretely). Way too many women find excuses to stop (there are legitemate reasons as stardust highlighted). But, there's really no reason to be obnoxious about it, and most women will be respectful enough to not be so dopey about it.

This is a whole other level and is clearly, as stardust better explains about the mother and not the child. And, as I said before - how is a picture of a 4 year old sucking a tit (even his mother's) not child pornography? This isn't about being a prude. It's about living in a civilized society where 4 yearl olds sucking a tit is not acceptable behavior in public. I guess if you wanted to have the debate in a private way, so be it. But, if you caught a 30 year old man downloading a similar picture of a 4 year old sucking a tit, they'd be arrested, or at the very least investigated. So, what's the difference?

Godfather.

wow ! I read this earlier but still wow!! I'm half inclined to say yea the photo borders child porn and I'm a little set back at the age of the child brest feeding but I'm also thinking this is a mothers choice and I learned a long time ago NEVER try and get between a mother and her cubs...you will lose every time.

Godfather.

Jason P

I can thankfully say I don't remember if I was breastfed or not. Don't want to know.

:geek:

blackredyellow

_ wrote:

hedonist wrote:

_ wrote:

The kid is THREE, not 6 or 7. The World Health Organization (among others) recommends that all babies be breastfed AT LEAST to the age of 2. Supplementation with solid foods should begin at six months, but breastfeeding should still continue even after they start eating solid foods.

Actually, I just saw on the news that he's four years old...but still. It's not so much the age issue - what do I know anyway? I've never been in that position - but there's something about him on the stepstool and them overall. Strikes me as...off. Unnatural, and not maternal.

I think that's kind of the problem/point... that something that IS so totally natural & maternal is so often seen in our society as unnatural, not maternal, and off. We need a paradigm shift regarding breastfeeding if we want to optimize the health of our children - and that's going to require exposing people to images like these until they become normalized.

I don't think breastfeeding is seen as unnatural at all... Sure, there are some people who have a problem with it in public, but there are people who have a problem with just about everything, no matter how normal it is. Those idiots should just be ignored.

But the point of breastfeeding, is to provide nourishment for a child that can't get it on their own. A 3 or 4 year old can do that... They can eat any normal solid foods. Heck, my son is 4 and he can make himself a peanut butter and jelly sandwich (albeit a bit messy lol).

As said before, mothers that do this, seem to have some major boundary issues.

EmBleve

"why attachment parenting drives some mothers to extremes", not 'normal'. It's excessive. Sure, it's the mother's choice, but putting it out there like this is, (I would consider), inappropriate, and it would make me uncomfortable to witness it. And those who have mentioned the fact that having photos put out like this borders on child pornography have a point.

hedonist

EdsonNascimento wrote:

What stardust said.

But, I wanted to add - you are confusing 2 things - breastfeeding acceptance and the breast feeding of a grown child.

Exactly, and thank you (and stardust)...this was the point I was trying to make.

puremagic

What's wrong with pumping the breast milk instead of having a 3 yr. old hanging off your breast.

EdsonNascimento

puremagic wrote:

What's wrong with pumping the breast milk instead of having a 3 yr. old hanging off your breast.

That's really besides the point, but as I understand it pumping is both painful and uncomfortable (let alone unnatural). It needs to be done, especially for the mom that works "off site," but why does a 3 or 4 year old need to be breast fed is the real question here. Method aside. And my guess is if this woman has no problem humiliating her 4 year old son on the cover of Time where his friends will be able to find it in years to come, she has no interest in having a mechanical device do the work.

markin ball

So far we just have a lot of gut reactions to this but why is this there a problem with this medically, scientifically, pyscologically speaking, etc? Anyone have any facts?

Johnny Abruzzo

markin ball wrote:

So far we just have a lot of gut reactions to this but why is this there a problem with this medically, scientifically, pyscologically speaking, etc? Anyone have any facts?

It's hard to deny that a 4-year old sucking a boob is weird. I'd say to each her own.

One problem is sometimes women who can't do it for as long as they tell them to are forced to feel guilty about it. Or people want to follow the guidelines and they basically starve their babies for lack of breast milk supply, which simply cannot be healthy. The guidelines of exclusive breast feeding for 6 months are extreme. They just are. It doesn't work for everybody.

EdsonNascimento

markin ball wrote:

So far we just have a lot of gut reactions to this but why is this there a problem with this medically, scientifically, pyscologically speaking, etc? Anyone have any facts?

That's actually a fine debate to have. But, she didn't need to humiliate her son and make it about HER (which is where the debate really begins, I think) with this picture. Pure and simple, it's the race to the bottom for what used to be journalism. Print magazines are dead (Except those with exclusive deals with the Kardashians - which I guess is another race to the BOTTOM ). When the magazines finally realize it, they may actually create themselves a better business model than child exploitation.

whygohome

This photo reminds me of the "strangeness" of men's obsession with breast and its origins.

:oops:

MotoDC

whygohome wrote:

This photo reminds me of the "strangeness" of men's obsession with breast and its origins.

:oops:

Don't you dare ruin that for me.

Godfather.

markin ball wrote:

So far we just have a lot of gut reactions to this but why is this there a problem with this medically, scientifically, pyscologically speaking, etc? Anyone have any facts?

BAAAAM!! good call, as far as I can tell it's mostly a personal opinion deal because most of us and MAYBE ? espically the women can't imagine brest feeding a 6 year old and then seeing a picture on the cover of Time mag of a 1/2 topless gal with a 6 year old lip locked onto her brest and looking at the camara does take it to another level kinda.

Godfather.

Godfather.

now it will start getting ugly.....
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/ ... about-boy/


Godfather.

EdsonNascimento

Godfather. wrote:

now it will start getting ugly.....
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/ ... about-boy/


Godfather.

That rational article is from Fox. So, Biden, errr. I mean Obama will soon come out advocating for hot women to have 4 year olds sucking their tits on every magazine cover.

(Disclaimer, so this doesn't get miscontrued - I am not making fun of the stance I am referring to - I am for gay marriages - the joke is meant to poke at the way our fearless leader was forced into his announcement then lauded as the first when an ex-VP had already come out advocating for the same 3 years prior. Carry on).