gwynne
DIS Legend
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2012
- Messages
- 10,489
The poster I quoted was responding to another poster who said its indiscreet for a 4 year old to nurse in public. They were not referring to the Time magazine article. I brought up the article in a separate part of my post. Other posters (who I did not quote) mentioned the child being 5 and another 6. I was referring both to those posters as well as people I have heard talk about the photo IRL.
It doesn't really matter how old people "think" he looks. The article (as well as other articles referencing the article/photo) indicates clearly that he was 3. That was kind of my point-- people think it looks inappropriate, so they feel the need to exaggerate the age to make their gut reaction seem more justified.
Well, you are absolutely correct about the kid being 3.
I tend to think there is are probably some overall differences between a child that is three years, 0 months and and child that is 3 years, 11 months.
I believe the photo was staged for an obvious reason. It did get attention.