TIME magazine and breast feeding a 4 year old

24567…17

Replies

  • opus649
    opus649 Posts: 633 Member
    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.
  • Carrot1971
    Carrot1971 Posts: 272 Member
    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!
  • kappyblu
    kappyblu Posts: 654 Member
    I did not breastfeed my kids that long...the longest was 18 months. It would not have been my personal choice to be breastfeeding my kids at that age, but who am I to judge? As far as the magazine cover goes, when I breastfed my babies, if there was anyone around other than my other small children, I always had a light blanket thrown over me and the baby. Just my personal choice. The magazine cover was bold, but shouldn't be surprising to anyone because it's not like breastfeeding older children is anything new. I support it because it is my hope that people will be more accepting of breastfeeding as a whole and not be so prudish about it when they see mothers breastfeeding their babies in public.

    And for the people who say if a kid has teeth, they should not breastfeed.....that's ridiculous. A lot of babies start getting teeth at around 3 months and they should still be breastfeeding at that age.
  • _Aimée_
    _Aimée_ Posts: 190
    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.

    Do you not see? A binkie was designed to replace a breast. Tits have been around millions of years, the pacifier is a new artificial invention. I know which I'm choosing.
  • Huskeryogi
    Huskeryogi Posts: 578 Member
    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.

    You say you agree with the post about not pitting mothers against each other and then you make a judgement about mother's who breastfeed past 1 year?
  • whitetiger011680
    whitetiger011680 Posts: 218 Member
    Pump it and put it in a cup...you wouldn't keep giving a 3-7 year old milk in a bottle


    This^^^
  • k1mmi3
    k1mmi3 Posts: 10
    I don't think it is disgusting or any of the other negative comments that have been made - I breastfed my daughter until she was two and my son until he was 18 months old and they both weaned themselves. I will say that as my family is plagued with asthma and allergies it was definate choice to continue with my daughter and I never even thought about it with my son.

    Re peoples views - it is purely based on the society in which they live, for example if you lived in Mongolia you would find it strange it someone stopped feeding at one or even 18 months!

    Think this topic should just bring home the fact that we should not be so judgemenal and especially when we are being manipulated into being so by an emotive picture...

    As this is a weightloss site - breastfeeding is an amazing way to lose weight to, mother natures remedy for getting back into shape!
  • jcstanton
    jcstanton Posts: 1,849 Member
    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 that there is nothing wrong with breastfeeding, but when a child is old enough to verbally ask for a drink, he/she is too old to have mom's boob in their mouth. If you feel breast milk is best for your child, fine, there's this wonderful invention called a BREAST PUMP. Pump it out and put it in a sippy cup. I also agree that the way TIME magazine portrayed it was more than a little creepy. What mother, even one who breastfeeds their three year old, would stand with their boob hanging out and have their child stand in a chair and go to town on it... It seems a little pornographic to me.
  • foxy2311
    foxy2311 Posts: 179
    I heard this on the radio on my way to work. By the way they were talking you'd think the kid was 10. I was freaked out by that. But to hear it's only a 3 year old...eh. I think if the kid can begin to verbalize that they want mom's milk (ie. Grown Ups lol) then it's definitely time to ween.
  • DoubleE615312
    DoubleE615312 Posts: 173 Member
    First off to each his own...none of my business

    My personal opinion is if you can breastfeed great do it. but let's wean the child a little earlier than 3. If the mother wants to continue then I agree with others, pump and put in a cup. I have read there is no significant nutritional value in breast milk after a year of breastfeeding. just my .02
  • TheChocolatePrincess
    TheChocolatePrincess Posts: 137 Member
    I'll be breastfeeding my son until he's 3 or 4.
    I'm 19 years old, and I made that decision the moment he was born - i want to give him the best, i produce plenty of milk, why shouldn't i? it's not disgusting, it's natural. sure, not everyone wants to, and that's completely their choice, but just remember that the international weaning age is between 4-7 years; it's only because breasts have become so sexualized that we find it 'weird'.

    The international weaning age is between 4-7 years old because of necessity, not option.

    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.

    its like saying "the international marriage age is 15" or "the international drinking age is 12" or "only 1 out of 500 homes in the world have indoor plumbing so there is absolutely nothing wrong with pooping in the streets".

    Some things that "the world" is doing isn't necessarily what the Western World is doing and that needs to be accounted for when making that argument.

    I refuse to drink the koolaid just because somebody tells me that everyone else in the world is doing it. Do whats right for you and yours because it is what you want to do. Good luck with your decision, my bff tells me breastfeeding helps with post baby weight loss so maybe you will lose the baby weight and some, I would love to hear the results 4 years from now.
  • Shayztar
    Shayztar Posts: 415 Member
    *shakes head*

    I don't even have the words... I am getting upset with the amount of people telling me to wean my son. He's 14 months. It works for us. He feeds 4 times a day, before and after every time he sleeps. There are so many health benefits, even beyond a year. For both of us, especially with the history of breast cancer in my family. I would have BF my daughter longer except I got pregnant and couldn't. I plan to BF until he naturally weans. If that means he's 3, that's fine. I don't think he'll want that tho. He's already too busy to BF these days. Why sit still with mom when there is a cat to annoy or blocks to build?

    To each their own. I agree. This is a shameful attempt at attention grabbing on the part of Time magazine. That's not how a mom would BF a 3 year old anyway. I only read an excerpt this morning since I don't subscribe, but I hope the article is respectful of "Attachment Parenting". At my house, we just call it parenting. LOL


    14839892.png
  • jodi4861
    jodi4861 Posts: 9 Member
    I'm against Time Magazine for pitting mothers against each other. And doing it on Mother's Day.

    Great statement!!!! I agree!
  • rossi02
    rossi02 Posts: 549 Member
    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.

    Really, then why does WHO and Unicef recommend breastfeeding till at least the age of 2? The APA, on the other hand recommends to do it for at least the first year. Benefits from breastmilk don't have a magical cut off date. It may not be your cup of tea, but implying that after age 1 there are no benefits for the child and that it must be an issue on the mother is incorrect.
  • greasygriddle_wechnage
    greasygriddle_wechnage Posts: 246 Member
    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.

    .

    You say you agree with the post about not pitting mothers against each other and then you make a judgement about mother's who breastfeed past 1 year?


    i apologize, doing it on mother's day weekend. i still don't agree with it, but that is my opinion. i guess i should not have given an opinion on it, looking back
  • _Aimée_
    _Aimée_ Posts: 190
    I'm not a mummy yet, but personally I don't understand why anyone would *want* a child that age sucking on their boob! In my opinion, if the child is old enough to 'ask' for it or bite off a nipple it's too old to have one in it's mouth! :noway:

    There are plenty of ways to give breast milk without continued breast-feeding!

    A baby asks for milk as soon as its shot out of its mummies belly, it will instinctively start to crawl towards the breast. At 4 months my son would pat my breasts for a feed, at 5 months he could sign for milk, six months he could say 'muk', when he was 1.5 he was asking for mummy milk, all 'asking' for it. Why should we stop our children. having what is naturally their right just because they can verbally communicate. As for biting off a nipple...haha!
    Annd 'wanting' to have a child suckling at that age..when you have a child its not about you anymore. Their needs come first, always,
  • Ralphrabbit
    Ralphrabbit Posts: 351 Member
    Something I don't need to have an opinion on as it is doing nobody any harm!
    Each mother & each child is different & why do we have any right to pass our opinions???
  • Amber50lbsDown
    Amber50lbsDown Posts: 255 Member
    I find nothing wrong with the picture or extended BF if Mom and Child are comfortable with it.
    But the caption on the cover really bothers me.
  • goofyrick24
    goofyrick24 Posts: 125 Member
    I'm Thinking What all your husbands are thinking when they see the Picture...."Damn I Wish I was her kid....Lucky little SH@# !!!"
  • JennaM222
    JennaM222 Posts: 1,996 Member
    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.
  • MsNewBooty83
    MsNewBooty83 Posts: 985 Member
    the human raqce would not and could not have survived this far with out breast feeding mothers. the world wide average age children are breastfed until is 4 :) the human body is an amazing thing and we have these natural gifts for a reason. if i lived in a country that say did not have fresh clean drinking water, i would brestfeed my entire family to keep them hydrated adn healthy and safe if i needed to, i actully kind of wish i was still producing breast milk just for emergency situations. NOT KIDDING.
  • My1985Freckles
    My1985Freckles Posts: 1,039 Member
    I don't think the picture should have been on the cover. When a child is that big (not going by age, but size), it seems a little odd to see them breastfeeding. I feel for the child becuase someday his fiancee is going to find out that he was the Time Cover Boob Child and she's going to freak out. Sorry, but if I found out that my hubby was BF at an "older" age, I probably would have thought he is too attached to his mother and moved on.
  • GermanicKnight
    GermanicKnight Posts: 445
    So the kid grows up to be a boob man, big deal!

    This measures on the I care scale......a 0.125. IT was done to draw attention, it has done what it was supposed to do.
  • rossi02
    rossi02 Posts: 549 Member
    My almost-3 year old would throw a hissy fit if he didn't get a daily breastfeed. As long as he keeps asking, I won't refuse.

    Kudos to any mother not bowing to the unfair peer pressure to give up too early.


    *He's very tall for 3 lol

    :flowerforyou: Keep up the great work!!
  • mangozulu
    mangozulu Posts: 90 Member
    I'm against Time Magazine for pitting mothers against each other. And doing it on Mother's Day.

    I agree!
  • myfitnessnmhoy
    myfitnessnmhoy Posts: 2,105 Member
    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.
  • LondonEliza
    LondonEliza Posts: 456 Member
    I breastfed my son until he was 19 months, my daughter weaned herself at 12 months.

    Loads of my friends fed for longer
    Some fed for shorter
    Some tried and realised it was not for them
    Some did not want to try

    We all supported and encouraged each other. From bringing around cabbage leaves to recommending the best bottles and sterilizers to buy. We did not take each others lifestyle choices as an excuse to tell them that they or their actions were wrong or disgusting or should be hidden. Seriously, Motherhood is hard enough at times without horsesh1t like this!

    I am sorry that Time magazine has chosen to present the story in this way. When you give birth, you are not entered into a competition to be Uber-Mum by your friends, I don't see why it is acceptable to be entered into it by the media.
  • joannea1988
    joannea1988 Posts: 73
    the average age for weaning is 4 , yep 4 expept the western world, where, were way to used to bottle feeding ar only breast feeding until 3 months. Anything different is gross, which is crazy. No mum should be told when to stop breastfeeding. Id love to see more women feeding there babys for longer, i breastfed my daughter for 10 months and only stopped because i fell pregnant with my son. Breast are way to over sexualised here, there to feed a baby not a mans fantasy!
  • tamheath
    tamheath Posts: 702 Member
    I didn't breastfeed my first but plan on trying again with my next. I think the only reason the cover was gross was because of the way the two were posed. It was posed as a sexual looking scene rather than a natural, nuturing moment.

    Seriously, I know the kid was 3 but he looks like he could be 6. And he's standing on a chair sucking on his mother's naked breast.

    I feel it' sperfectly normal to do this inpubic until a certain age, but I don't feel a large child should be sucking on their mother's breast. By that age they are exposed to tv, video games and realize what things are sexualized.

    Totally agree with this. I did breast feed my kids. But the picture looks.... odd. Just weird and inappropriate. Would you really breast-feed your kid like that? I'm a complete supporter of breast feeding (yes, even in public) but if i saw THAT out in public, I'd probably hurl. Congratulations, TIME, you did exactly what was intended. We're all talking about you.
  • mdundon09
    mdundon09 Posts: 66 Member
    Frankly, I'm annoyed with Time magazine for purposely trying to start a debate about whether or not mothers should be breastfeeding their toddlers/preschool children. It's just going to make women more uncomfortable to do so. I didn't breastfeed my children that long but, as long as they are receiving the nutrients they need and their mom is planning on weaning them at SOME point in the near future, there is nothing wrong or gross about it.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories