Breastfeed Magazine Cover
kapeluza
Posts: 3,434 Member
So this is the new cover of TIME magazine. Breastfeeding. The boy on the cover page is at least 4, if not 5.
What are your thoughts?
What are your thoughts?
0
Replies
-
Seriously? The chit-chat forums got more responses than our group? I'm disappointed. I really wanted to discuss this! BAH!
I was hoping to wake up to 1-2 responses at least. I guess we could wait for that topic to get closed down again..... :grumble:0 -
In my opinion, the cover shot was not done in good taste. I realize Time did it to sell the magazine, but I think the mom could have used better judgment.0
-
Okay, let's get a real debate started on this issue.
1. So, I'm not "enough of a mom" because I chose not to breastfeed my children? And moms who stop earlier are not "mom enough"? Whatever.
2. BF is natural. There are many other bodily functions that are natural that you just don't do out in public. I have no problem with women BF in public, but a little modesty around MY children would be nice.
3. I think it's pathetic how the mom on the cover allowed her chid to pose like that with her.0 -
Not mom enough because I am not breastfeeding my 5 yr old toddler? Oh what the eff ever. Personally, I think breastfeeding should stop when toddlers are introduced completely into veggies and all foods. No, I don't mean at 9 months, I mean at perhaps 24 months. I don't see what benefit a 5 yr old can have?0
-
The angle in which the kid is looking into the camera is creepy (no doubt about that) - I also feel sorry for that kid come 10 years now (with that picture of him & his mother is forever printed on the pages of the internet).0
-
I am a fan of breastfeeding.I am ok with breastfeeding a baby in public as long as you are somewhat discreet about it, ie: a blanket over you or something.
I too think this cover was done in bad taste, for shock value and sales. The kid is actually 3, but is much larger than my 4 year old. The angle and the scene it portrayed was not of a loving, nurturing act. Had it been a small baby and not a boy over half his mothers size looking at the camera with his mouth on his mom's nip, it may have been different.
Also, I beleive once a child is over bottle age, it's time to pump and feed from a sippy cup. Children become aware of sexual situations at such a young age that I think it is inappropriate to still be using the breast. Thanks to TV, music, movies, they will look at certain things sexually rather than natural. My son is 4 and knows not to look or will pretend to look away if there is even kissing in a movie. To think of him feeding from my breasts gives me the creeps!
As elmarko said, poor kid is going to hate his mom when he grows up for this!0 -
I already responded in the regular forums. Here it is:
Time magazine accomplished what they had hoped to accomplish. They caused controversy and sold magazines. There is no "set in stone" date for when breast feeding should halt, but every family dynamic is different. I think it's a little excessive, but what do I know and it's nobody's business to chime in to that family's practices.
Being breastfed for an extended period is a far sight better than being ignored or abused.0 -
Yes, but at some point BF can become more for the parent than the child, and that's a form of abuse. I'm not talking about in a sexual way; I'm talking about some mothers who are more dependent upon their child than the other way around. It happens.Being breastfed for an extended period is a far sight better than being ignored or abused.0 -
I tried to read the article, but I guess TIME has gone subscription-only (shows how long it's been since I visited the site). My impression from the cover and the subject is that the topic is not just extended breast feeding, but the whole issue of "attachment parenting" of which this type of breast feeding was just one component.
Whether it's child-rearing or health and fitness, it seems to me that a lot of "philosophies" are long on "imagination" and short on data justifying the ideas. We imagine things like "oh, cavemen did this, so it's more "natural" for everyone to do it".
Often these lifestyle choices say about the emotional needs of the person following them than anything else. IMO, people who devote themselves excessively to a lifestyle or a "cause"--be it political, social, religious, whatever--are people who lack a core set of values or a core sense of self-worth and so they try to fill themselves up by heavily investing in the "cause". They use the external aspects of that belief or lifestyle as a type of emotional/psychological exoskeleton to shore up their own weak foundation.0 -
The cover itself kind of ties back to the other discussion about norms in America and our bizarre attitudes towards public nudity. I find the cover distasteful, not because of the subject or the partial nudity, but because of the general narcissism of the mother. I feel the same way every time I am in line at the grocery store and see a Kardashian.
But I digress. I am sure many people will be offended by the cover, as they are about seeing pregnant women naked on magazine covers. I have an interesting cultural comparison. Der Spiegel is a mainstream German magazine, kind of the German equivalent of Time. In the late 1970s, my first job out of college was teaching high school German and medieval history (at an all-girls Catholic high school--think about that, patti.....:devil: ).
Anyhow, I got approval to subscribe to some German magazines -- which was a big deal back then--in order to have some current cultural content for my juniors and seniors. One magazine was Der Spiegel -- pretty safe, huh? One month, they did a story on the growth of interest in child nudity, sexuality and even pornography. Much of the story focused on "mainstream" part of the business--mothers who allowed prepubescent girls to pose for 'art" photos, movies that focused on teen sex, etc.
This all leads up to the cover shot. As I opened up the brown envelope, what did I see but a 12 year old girl posing naked on the cover wearing only a hat and a feather boa. And this was not some discreet "peekaboo" picture like the one on TIME--it was a full-frontal provocative pose. Well, our school was liberal, but not THAT liberal. My reaction was "holy crap" as I stuffed it under my jacket as quickly as possible.
Now THAT was a provocative cover. This is pretty tame by comparison.0 -
No problem with the practice of breastfeeding. Lots of benefits. I'm also not on patrol to judge other people's parenting choices. I agree that discretion is important, but I also acknowledge the gray area between discretion and the fight for acceptance. In other words, it may take some people crossing a line to get the line accepted. I don't agree with this approach, but I understand it. There are people that think the act of breastfeeding (discreet or not) belongs in a dark room with no one around.
There is also the attitude of "I have the right to do this, I have a chip on my shoulder, and I'm going to create a conflict or scene so that I can alleviate and/or charge up this chip on my shoulder." Not a fan of that approach.
WRT to Time magazine, I agree with RoadDog. They absolutely knew what they were doing and succeeded. I haven't read the article, but suspect they played up the "you aren't enough of a mom" angle because that adds fuel to the controversy. It was well-played.
And yes, macpatti is right about the dependence on moms thing. Breastfeeding can become an unhealthy parent attachment. Still (again agreeing with RoadDog), that issue is FAR LESS damaging than being abused or ignored. Sure, the issue of a parent who is too attached to her child is not positive. But I suspect the long-term damage to the kid is in a different league. Also, a parent who is breastfeeding solely for herself likely has other issues around the parent relationship (breastfeeding then is really just a symptom of other problems).
All that being said, we'd have much less an issue about breastfeeding were we not so uptight about sex, sexuality, the human body, etc. Once again, TIME knew what they were doing when they got a young, fit, attractive mom for the cover. They are spoon-feeding their audience the sexual connection to breastfeeding - when there should be none.0 -
I think breastfeeding is a wonderful thing. I think this cover was in extremely poor taste and the child will be pissed when he is older and sees it. I think there are some children that can benefit from extended feeding, but I think most are more because mommy wants to keep it up. I don't know what the dynamics are in that family or others, but the fact that the mother was willing to do this seems like she is in it for the shock value and for herself more than her child.0
-
And, I must say: they ARE nice breasts.0
-
The boy on the cover page is at least 4, if not 5.
He's 3. When his parents feel he's ready to be done, that's when it'll happen. It's not for anyone else to judge. Was the caption in bad taste and pitting moms against each other? yes.0 -
Now there is a massive debate going on on our local new's facebook page. A girl I attended high school with, has a 2 year old( maybe a bit younger) and is one who uses the "attachment' method. Her son recently had tubes in his ears and she was irate that the dr's office suspected her of abusing her son, as he screamed anytime a "stranger" doctor or nurse came near him or touched him. He was so out of control that they rescheduled her appointment. Her excuse was that she used the attachment method and that her son is sketchy around others as he is exposed to very few strangers for his own protection and given what he wants when he wants to keep him calm. :noway:
Edit to add: What is this kid going to be like when he goes to school? He will have to interact with "strangers", share and communicate with others. I'd like to see how this works out.0 -
It was late last night so I didn't even notice the tiny type on the corner stating the ages. That kid does look big though!0
-
Breast feeding in public is no big deal to me as long as the mother is being somewhat discreet and tasteful. This cover is purposely obnoxious. And when exactly are these mothers going to stop letting these kids suckle? This is not for the child's sake, it's for the mother's sake. Some of these boys are going to be weaning of their mothers tit just in time to start dating for crying out loud.0
-
I think breastfeeding will never be accepted in our society until the media stops sensationalizing it. How long a woman chooses to BF, or if she does it at all is an entirely personal decision.0
-
Breast feeding in public is no big deal to me as long as the mother is being somewhat discreet and tasteful. This cover is purposely obnoxious. And when exactly are these mothers going to stop letting these kids suckle? This is not for the child's sake, it's for the mother's sake. Some of these boys are going to be weaning of their mothers tit just in time to start dating for crying out loud.
That first date is in for a shock when dessert time comes around.0 -
Our local news did a story on that cover this morning. They blurred out the breast area. After that story they went to commercial break where they aired a Victoria's Secret commercial. Our society is so screwed up it's almost laughable. I do agree that the boy is too old to be BF anymore but that's not my decision to make. But to blurr out an image of someone BFing or say they shouldn't do it in public or they need to cover up completely if they do then air VS commercials is ridiculous. I've seen women in the mall get harassed for BFing in a corner someplace and called disgusting and "in your face" by people who said absolutely nothing to the preteens dressed like hookers and boys with their pants around their ankles. Completely backasswards.0
-
We agree completely on this one! And we closely agreed in a debate yesterday!Breast feeding in public is no big deal to me as long as the mother is being somewhat discreet and tasteful. This cover is purposely obnoxious. And when exactly are these mothers going to stop letting these kids suckle? This is not for the child's sake, it's for the mother's sake. Some of these boys are going to be weaning of their mothers tit just in time to start dating for crying out loud.0 -
Reminds me of this...
0 -
Not really, two people are involved in the act.I think breastfeeding will never be accepted in our society until the media stops sensationalizing it. How long a woman chooses to BF, or if she does it at all is an entirely personal decision.
Women do not own their children.
You need to consider the long term impact of the child (if they are either kept dependant) along in this case with the life-time of humiliation he will ensure (all for the sake of a cheap photo shoot to sell a magazine).0 -
Women do not own their children.
You need to consider the long term impact of the child (if they are either kept dependant)...
True, mothers do not "own" their children. But they *are* in the best position to determine the needs of the child. Throwing out blanket statements about children being "kept dependent" because of extended breastfeeding contributes zero to the discussion.
The World Health Organization recommends *minimum* two years and *maximum* of "as long as it remains beneficial to mother and child." I don't see how it's anyone's place to judge what a mother decides is best.0 -
But I do agree the Time cover was in poor taste and obviously intended to cause controversy.
No mother should ever be made to feel inadequate because she chose not to breastfeed.0 -
I think breastfeeding will never be accepted in our society until the media stops sensationalizing it. How long a woman chooses to BF, or if she does it at all is an entirely personal decision.
I agree 100%.0 -
We agree completely on this one! And we closely agreed in a debate yesterday!Breast feeding in public is no big deal to me as long as the mother is being somewhat discreet and tasteful. This cover is purposely obnoxious. And when exactly are these mothers going to stop letting these kids suckle? This is not for the child's sake, it's for the mother's sake. Some of these boys are going to be weaning of their mothers tit just in time to start dating for crying out loud.
Actually, I've been noticng that for awhile. We mostly clash on certain aspects of religion it seems.0 -
:flowerforyou:Actually, I've been noticng that for awhile. We mostly clash on certain aspects of religion it seems.0 -
Anyone who thinks bfing past a certain age is for the mother and not the child has obviously never nursed a toddler. I would says almost all moms nursing an older child would be very happy for the kid to stop. But they continue because it is normal and natural and HEALTHY for the child to nurse. Believe me, moms get no pleasure (other than the pleasure of knowing they are giving their child something SO amazing) from bfing an older child. And you can not force a child to nurse if they don't want to. It just doesn't happen.
Breast milk does not suddenly stop being good for a child just because they reach a certain age. Heck, it would be great for adults to drink it!
As for the magazine, with the title alone they knew they were going to get outrage. Add in a boob that is being used the way it is supposed to be and WHAM! A bunch of people with their panties in a bunch.
Oh and one more thing. Shame on anyone who thinks bfing is in anyway shape or form sexual. If you think that, you need some serious help.0 -
Really? Then why wouldn't they stop?I would says almost all moms nursing an older child would be very happy for the kid to stop.0
This discussion has been closed.