TIME magazine and breast feeding a 4 year old

feistyhorsegal

I haven't seen the article or the cover. I think breast feeding at that age is a little strange, but if Mum and child are happy with it I don't really see the issue. However once they are that big I think its definitely something that should be done in private and certainly not splashed on the cover of a magazine. I breastfed my 2nd daughter til she was 17 months, sometimes in public, and I can tell you I got some dirty looks. I really didn't care though. But still breastfeeding at 4 years old is not something I'd ever do.

MsNewBooty83

The kid is 3, not 4.

thanks for the correction-even at 3 years old-its disgusting. Not breast feeding itself-just at that age and the cover was just disturbing.

I agree.

oh, but its less disgusting to give your kids milk from a cow teet? hmm. intersting. or a toddler mixed formula from some big company that has killed children in 3rd world countries for greed...yup, im talking Nestle.

MsBaby117

I'm against Time Magazine for pitting mothers against each other. And doing it on Mother's Day.

Agreed!!! :mad:

feistyhorsegal

eeeewwwww just saw the cover. That is just wrong. It almost sexualises it or something. Bad bad bad Time Magazine!!!!

twistofcain

I still breast feed with my mom....er.

ninerbuff

Hell, I still breast feed.............................


A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

ashreynolds09

I personally find it disgusting-what are your thoughts?

In most countries children are breastfed until they wean themselves...usually around ages 3-4. This is not unusual or even discussed in those countries....it is just way of life. In American, breasts are not seen as life-giving, nutrient providers...they are seen as sexual objects. I don't fault you for your opinion. You are just a product of your society.

This!! 100% this!!!! The whole reason mammals have breasts is to suckle their young. A human child's immune system doesn't even fully develop until around 7, so at ages 3 and 4 the child is still receiving benefits from breast milk. There's absolutely nothing "disgusting" about it - it's one of the most natural things a woman can do.

This is also my opinion on it all. My co-workers saw the picture of the Time Magazine and went off about how terrible and horrible a woman is for breastfeeding her kids even after 6 months old. Then they asked me my opinion -- my simple answer is that "I breastfed til my kids were each a year old.....even in public." That shut'em up! (until one of their office doors closed...and I know what was said! (: ) I do disagree with the way Time approached this topic and I find it pathetic that our society finds it acceptable to have strippers...but not for a mother to simply feed her child.

enyo123

I know everyone has their own opinion. . . .But I just think its gross the way she is doing it. Maybe when they get that old . . just pump and poor it in a cup or something if you must. Personally I think its too old to be breast fed

Have you ever pumped? I exclusively pumped for my 2 year old when he was a newborn. It was a nightmare. Quite simply, pumping sucks. It's time consuming and inconvenient. If I were still giving my toddler breast milk, there's no way that I'd pump. There's no telling what he'd get into during that time. :-P

geetabean

I'm against Time Magazine for pitting mothers against each other. And doing it on Mother's Day.

^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^

i am a mother. and i also have to say, at that age, or after 1yr, has NOTHING to do with the child anymore, this has everything to do about her. research.

Maybe in your mothering situation with your own children this is true, but it doesn't make your opinion TRUE. I stopped nursing my youngest at 18 months and she was devastated! She still asks to nurse nearly every day. I wish people would stop making this into what's right and what's wrong. It isn't any different than dieting.....what you choose to do might be very different from what I choose to do, but if we're both happy with what we're doing then which one of us is "wrong"? Research always has a bias.

HellsBells61

I personally found the cover pic to be disturbing-what are your thoughts?

What's "disturbing" you - the fact that the mother is breastfeeding a 3 year old or that she had someone take a photo of her doing it or that its printed on the front cover of a magazine?

The first one doesn't bother me at all, the other two I agree. How is that kid going to cope with the abuse he's going to get from his friends? I hope the mother got paid enough to make her feel a bit better about what she's putting him through.

all4richie

Seems a bit much to me, I have heard of children drinking a bottle up until 5 or 6.

amanda3588

If the child can walk, talk, and chew, its time to stop breastfeeding.

mdundon09

But I have to say that the picture was purposely set up to be 100% creepy. It needlessly makes it look like a disturbingly sexual practice instead of one that is nurturing.

va_va_voom

I breastfed all 4 of my kids for various lengths of time. The longest being 1 year. I have friends who breastfed until 2-3 years of age. I think breastfeeding is the most natural thing in the world to do and loved every minute of it. With that being said, I think the cover was done in poor taste. I actually cringed when I saw it. I think they could've photographed a mother breastfeeding her 3 year old son in a much better light. It screams controversy!

This^^

beachlover317

Breastfeeding your children - great! Breastfeeding in public - great! Breastfeeding for as long as you both are comfortable - GREAT! Having your child stand on a chair on the cover of a magazine while breastfeeding - exploitation.

Contrary03

Pump it and put it in a cup...you wouldn't keep giving a 3-7 year old milk in a bottle

That folks, is hitting the nail on the head!.. Exactly!:drinker:

adam1885282

I'll add it to the list of "things that don't affect my life even a little."

Great attitude!

TheChocolatePrincess

From what I have seen, it is supplemental. The kids are eating real food and nursing whenever they feel the need which is typically emotionally driven, not hunger driven.

Mommy becomes a living binkie.

So you've seen it, and you've watched a bunch of TV specials against it, and you can now say with authority that it's not right for any child?

The reasons behind my brother's wife doing it were long and complex, and yes additional emotional support was part of that equation. He was born 2 1/2 months premature and just barely survived as it was. So no matter what "age" he was, he was always physically 2 1/2 months younger than that. He also went through an utter living hell with little contact with his mother for the first month or so as they used machines to keep him alive. So, yeah, using Mom as a binkie for a few extra years was probably part of what made up for that hell and helped him grow emotionally into a functioning individual. Or maybe it was bull****, but he grew up OK.

He's also got a grandmother who is as judgmental about it as you are, and constantly harps on about it, which is interfering with her relationship with him. Her choice, but she's alienating her grandson by not letting it go a decade later. And it's frankly sad.

Each parent is responsible for determining the needs of their child and filling them to the best of our abilities. Ours breastfed a little longer than some people think is "OK", but she weaned when it felt right.

There are many ways to raise a child, and your way obviously worked for yours. Stop judging the way others raise theirs - because there is simply no evidence to show that breastfeeding longer does emotional harm other than from the judgment of others and our nation's obsession with sexuality.

Defensive much? I am not "judging" I am just saying don't come at me with flawed arguments. I have no issue with people deciding to do what they want with their children. If you believe in spanking, spank, if you want to breastfeed until they 40, so be it, if you want to let your child cross dress, way to go. I don't "judge" people, but I am honest about what things are. Children who are spanked tend to exhibit more agressive behavior, children who are breastfed longer tend to be emotionally immature, children who cross dress tend to get picked on. It is what it is. If you know your baby is a premmie and already starting off behind the gate then do what you gotta do to help them catch up.

Its not a judgement, its an observation.

rossi02

Most of the world isn't priviledged to the abundance of food resource that the Western World has. In that, if you have a loaf of bread and a few vegetable to last a week, doesn't it make more sense to feed yourself and breastfeed your child from your body than to try and stretch your already stressed resources between two people and not provide either one of you with the calories or nutrition necessary for survival.

I'm not knocking your decision, your parenting choice is your own. I am just saying that when I hear that reasoning from women who live in the Western World, I find it flawed and misguided.

See, I look at this completely different than you. Why would breastfeeding be better for women who aren't getting proper nutrition themselves? It seems, that in 3rd world countries it would be better to wean them and give them "real" food versus depleting someone who can't consume enough to sustain themself. Versus draining what little nutrition they have for a child past the age of two. Sounds backwards to me.

kimdoes

I breastfed mine, but I stopped well before they were enrolled in school. There's something about knowing they are old enough to feed themselves and wipe their own butts that leads me to not want to plop my boob in their mouth anymore. Personally, it disturbs me too. But what someone else chooses to do and how they raise their kids does not affect me.