Time Magazine puts photo of woman breast feeding, Moms all over the world get butthurt because kid i
97 replies, posted
[img]http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17mb8ilkj48o8jpg/original.jpg[/img]
[quote]
Most people won’t dispute the benefits of breast-feeding.
But not everyone agrees on whether they want to see it on the cover of Time magazine.
This week, it shows a young mother breast-feeding a young boy who’s standing on a chair.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breast-feeding as the sole source of nutrition for babies for the first 6 months.
It not only has nutritional benefits but also provides protection against respiratory illnesses, ear infections, gastrointestinal diseases and allergies, according to the AAP. It provides a connection between mother and baby. Breast-fed babies are less likely to become obese adults.
But thanks to the May 21 cover of Time magazine, there’s a new term people are talking about: extreme breast-feeding. It’s part of something called “attachment parenting,” a concept promoted by noted pediatrician Bill Sears that includes such ideas as breast-feeding longer, having a family bed and not letting babies “cry it out.”
On Friday, the magazine’s cover was a hot topic on morning television and radio news and social media platforms.
“Time cover” and/or “breast-feeding” were three of the top five most searched terms on Google on Thursday and one of the top five on Friday.
The magazine cover shows Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, of Los Angeles, standing with one hand on her hip and the other around her nearly 4-year-old son, who is perched on a child-sized wooden chair, suckling at her breast. Both mother and son gaze at the camera. Across the cover are the words “Are You Mom Enough?”
Grumet is a married mother of two who writes a blog called “I am not the Babysitter.” Her older son, 5, was adopted, but she also nursed him after her biological son was born, according to the Time article. She said she’s been confronted by strangers who see her nursing and threaten “to call social services on me or that it’s child molestation.”
She said on the “Today” show Friday that she was breast-fed until age 6.
The cover has elicited a strong reaction, but it’s hard to tell if people are more offended by the photo or by having their maternal instincts questioned.
On The Post and Courier’s Facebook page, for instance, many comments ran along the lines of “If you think you can decide if I’m #momenough based on my ability or inability to breastfeed, you’re an idiot.”
Others felt the boy is too old to be breast-feeding and others said they wouldn’t pass judgment. Many discussed how long a baby should breast-feed.
The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests breast-feeding until at least 12 months and the World Health Organization suggests “up to two years of age or beyond.”
Beth Wheless, a West Ashley mother of three, said she had planned to nurse her older daughter, Lucy, until she was 12 months, but her pediatrician recommended continuing because the infant was too young to be vaccinated for H1N1, but could be protected by mother’s milk.
“All the doctors said you need to keep nursing her, so I did … and then things got busy and I didn’t wean her until she was 2,” she said. Now Lucy is 4, and Wheless breast-feeds her second daughter, Mary Alice, 5 months. “It was weird at (age) 2 because she could start undressing me. I think 3 might be a little too old. It’s not like that mom and that child are living in a third world country where that’s the only clean liquid.”
Some folks called it a ploy to sell magazines, and even praised the effort. Magazine expert Samir Husni, a professor at the Magazine Innovation Center, Meek School of Journalism and New Media at the University of Mississippi, called the cover a “stroke of genius” in an L.A. Times story.
Many news accounts say the accompanying story, by Kate Picker, does not include any new information.
“I think the debate around it is more interesting than the cover itself,” said Elena Strauman, associate professor at the College of Charleston who teaches health communication and media. “I think it does spur that discussion of how do we look at motherhood. ... Why does it matter that people are so upset about this cover when we have all of these other things out there that really glorify women showing off their body? Here we have this cover that shows something natural and we are horrified by it. There’s so much there and there are so many layers to this issue.”[/quote]
[url]http://www.postandcourier.com/article/20120512/PC16/120519698&slId=7[/url]
That chick is hot as hell, but yeah. Three is a bit old...
It's one of those moms
Jesus she's beautiful, I'd suck her tit till I was 80.
just fucking let him grow up
Heard the radio two days ago, good ol' dad was listening to Sean Hannity and the radio-man was VERY upset and offended with this, calling it "Child Porn", and that the mother should prosecuted as such.
3 years is a bit long but who the hell cares? It's her goddamned child, let her do with it what she wants so long as it doesn't make the kid an ax-murderer.
I'd get butthurt too if I was a mom, the mom in the cover is hot as hell.
BAN THIS FILTH! IT IS DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE DOWNFALL OF MODERN SOCIETY!
[QUOTE=J!NX;35924608]People are so damn jumpy it's sick.[/QUOTE]
women
christianity
Although I'm not against it strictly speaking, it's a bit... Odd. And redundant, once the kid can walk up to the fridge and take cow milk there.
What's this about a God of Cricket?
fix it please
"are u nom enough"
I honestly don't get why people are so shocked by this. Seriously, it's not going to end the world.
[QUOTE=Carne;35924737]I honestly don't get why people are so shocked by this. Seriously, it's not going to end the world.[/QUOTE]
Cause american culture is completely fucked, that's why. Seriously, blood, guts and gore is all fine but the second that anything even slightly sexual in any way, shape or form shows up there's mass hysteria.
There is a legitimate concern though it is best to express it in an others words "Your kid might have problems if you don't wean it off the breast at the appropriate time" said by Sigmund Freud
Some are worried that child will grow up to fantasize his mother, molest and expose his crotch on women.
I really don't envy the shit that kid will go through in school if anyone digs this up
[editline]12th May 2012[/editline]
I'm talking in like 10-15 years
That poor child. He's NOT getting the right nutrition just from breast milk and who knows what kind of psychological issues he'll face, let alone the social issues.
[QUOTE=deltasquid;35924695]Although I'm not against it strictly speaking, it's a bit... Odd. And redundant, once the kid can walk up to the fridge and take cow milk there.[/QUOTE]
except cow milk lacks the nutrients required for healthy infant development, why do you think forumla exists?
That kid is going to fucking die when he's older and goes to school. hah.
This is just weird.
[editline]12th May 2012[/editline]
I don't think you should breast feed kids once they can talk.
[QUOTE=Afrika;35925471]That kid is going to fucking die when he's older and goes to school. hah.[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't he get high-fived instead for getting such hot titty?
hot
[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;35924759]Cause american culture is completely fucked, that's why. Seriously, blood, guts and gore is all fine but the second that anything even slightly sexual in any way, shape or form shows up there's mass hysteria.[/QUOTE]
Well after all the country WAS founded by some Puritans that left GB because of their stupidly rigid morale principles.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;35925607]Wouldn't he get high-fived instead for getting such hot titty?[/QUOTE]
His mothers tit?
Think about what you're actually saying.
[QUOTE=Afrika;35925743]His mothers tit?
Think about what you're actually saying.[/QUOTE]
Wincest, tits are tits, who gives a shit.
snip
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
