Time Cover - What do you think?

[Disney Doll]

An almost 4 year old child does not need to nurse for any reason. Plus, there is nothing nurturing/comforting about that picture at all. "Sexy" Mom is standing there defiantly while her 4 year old child dressed as a soldier is hanging off her breast.

If Mom was holding said 4 year old on her lap and cuddling him while breastfeeding, I could at least see the "comfort" aspect of it. I still wouldn't agree with it, but I could understand it a bit better.

That mother and that magazine are exploiting that boy and I find it abhorrent.

And no, I do not have a problem with women nursing infants in public.

 

[ZephyrHawk]

I have no real comment about the picture myself, except that when I first saw it I wondered if the boy was really feeding or just posing. The mom's...assets (must use DIS-unfiltered word) seem a heck of a lot smaller than any of the nursing moms I know.

Now I'll kick into behavioral-ecologist mode:

Now the information I found us about 5 years old but Le Leche League states that the worldwide average for breast feeding is 4.2 years.

If that is indeed true I have to wonder why we as Americans have such a problem with it.

I have no reason to doubt this statistic, as there are many good reasons for extended breastfeeding in many of those under-developed places in the world. Number 1 on the list is birth control. Lactational amenorrhea gives women a natural form of birth control, sometimes for up to 4 years. In countries where women have no access to other birth control methods, long term bf-ing is the best alternative to keep them from being constantly pregnant. Number 2 is poor water sources (and the realted tainting of local food sources). When the water can kill your child (especially in the absence of good medical care), it's best to keep them hooked up to the natural filtration system in your own body as long as possible. Number 3 is lack of available food in general. If you can only afford grain to feed yourself, at least you can "re-use" it to feed your child as well.

American's don't have a problem with extended breastfeeding. We just don't have any need for it.

Pssst! Animals nurse their young, even those born with a full set of teeth.

Yes, but after a short time period most mammals become lactose intolerant. In fact, lactose intolerance is the base-normal for humans as well. We've only developed lactose tolerance since the development of agriculture (and thus, the taming of milk producing animals). We, like our animal cousins, are not really supposed to continue drinking from our mothers after we have advanced to a level where we can handle solid foods.

That being said, babies (of all mamalian and monotreme species) do not start out drinking milk merely because they're unable to eat solids. They start off drinking milk because that is what they evolved to eat, and what their parents co-evolved to produce. Babies cannot survive (or at least, cannot thrive) on a diet which is made digestible for them, but which otherwise does not contain the same nutrients as milk.

And if I just made anyone google "monotreme", my day is made.

 

[JEmaryland]

First consider the source!!!!!

Why do we have a problem with it, because it is not necessary and not needed. We have the resources to feed our population. A child does not nutritionally need to breastfeed at 4. The only reason babies don't start out eating food is no teeth, he has teeth. If we were born with full teeth and the ability to eat adult food then we as animals would never have started breast feeding.

So I will say it again the only reason an older child is breastfeeding is for the Mom. The child would be perfectly fine not eating that way.

That's not true. Babies under the 4 to 6 month range are breastfed or formula fed because their digestive systems can't handle solid foods.

 

[Gina]

I truly wish I could un-see that picture. I hope she is saving up for his therapy, because once he gets to jr. high or high school and that picture leaks out, he has had it...

Seriously, cut the cord. There are so many ways to have super-happy-special-bonding-time with your child... Ways that need to be cultivated early so that by the time he or she is a teenager you don't have to alter those ways very much. Or is she planning on bf'ing that poor kids right up until he goes to college?

 

[gwynne]

I truly wish I could un-see that picture. I hope she is saving up for his therapy, because once he gets to jr. high or high school and that picture leaks out, he has had it...

Seriously, cut the cord. There are so many ways to have super-happy-special-bonding-time with your child... Ways that need to be cultivated early so that by the time he or she is a teenager you don't have to alter those ways very much. Or is she planning on bf'ing that poor kids right up until he goes to college?

BBM--ITA
But..unfortunately for this pre-schooler, mommy is a professional blogger. This way of spending time together appears to be...profitable.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with blogging in general. When it comes to kids, though, parents really should think about what they blog about. I'm afraid this little guy is going to be hearing about his cover story for way too many years to come. Sad.

 

[FireDancer]

Yes, because breastfeeding is meant to be pleasurable to a grown man.

Well no but if I'm going to see a mom with a teat hanging out I'd rather it be the hot mom that snapped back like this one as opposed to a frumpy disaster that has the sex appeal of prostate cancer, KWIM?

Not to mention that laughing icon should have indicated it was a joke. Man, still no sense of humor on the community board.

Just to be clear, I have no problem with blogging in general. When it comes to kids, though, parents really should think about what they blog about. I'm afraid this little guy is going to be hearing about his cover story for way too many years to come. Sad.

That is really the biggest issue IMO. This will be online forever. I can't imagine how fun it will be to be this kid when his classmates find this in middle school and decide to print out 100 copies and paper the halls with it. People really need to think about all the consequences of everything they put online.

 

[SaraJayne]

Well no but if I'm going to see a mom with a teat hanging out I'd rather it be the hot mom that snapped back like this one as opposed to a frumpy disaster that has the sex appeal of prostate cancer, KWIM?

Not to mention that laughing icon should have indicated it was a joke. Man, still no sense of humor on the community board.

"Snapped back"? It's been 4 freaking years!!

 

[bookgirl]

I don't have a problem with the picture persay. I get it.


I don't even have a problem with AP and it's varied beliefs.


I do have a problem with any woman whipping out her breasts in public. I don't care if you want to bf you infant or your preschooler as long as it's discreet.

Just my belief system. You can be a mom and still be a lady. Don't care how natural it is there are some things that should still be private.

Showing your breasts in public for any reason is just trashy behavior.

Edited the last line a little to clarify.

 

[MichelleVW]

I do have a problem with any woman whipping out her breasts in public. I don't care if you want to bf you infant or your preschooler as long as it's discreet.

Just my belief system. You can be a mom and still be a lady. Don't care how natural it is there are some things that should still be private.

Showing your breasts for any reason is just trashy.

Agreed!!!

 

[FireDancer]

"Snapped back"? It's been 4 freaking years!!

Haha, true. But I've seen moms who never managed it so I'm going to still give her credit on that. The public photo shoot, blogging, and breast feeding an almost 4 year old...not so much.

 

[castleview]

Don't ask me why it took so long to realize that attachment parenting isn't about the child avoiding separation anxiety; it's about the mom not being able to detach herself from the kid. It seems like this method of raising kids(and all parents do most things described, just nowhere near as extreme) is an excuse to be a softy and avoid reality.

 

[BroganMc]

What do I think?

Geez, Time's circulation must really be hurting to put that on the cover.

Reminds me of the Vanity Fair cover this week with the four naked women in bed together. Makes it stand out from the Rag Mag offerings in the checkout aisle. I still didn't buy any though.

The photo is real? That mother really wants to put that photo out there of her son? Oh the poor kid. Middle School boys are gonna torture him one day. I'm sure Sigmund Freud would have had a field day with her case.

Breastfeeding an infant is fine. Even breastfeeding in public (as long as it is discreet) is fine too. But there is a time limit to those things. The longer you treat a child like a baby the longer it takes him/her to mature. Seems to me the one thing American society needs more of these days is maturity. Maybe then we wouldn't have so many stupid "reality" TV shows.

 

[Coconut36]

First consider the source!!!!!

Why do we have a problem with it, because it is not necessary and not needed. We have the resources to feed our population. A child does not nutritionally need to breastfeed at 4. The only reason babies don't start out eating food is no teeth, he has teeth. If we were born with full teeth and the ability to eat adult food then we as animals would never have started breast feeding.

So I will say it again the only reason an older child is breastfeeding is for the Mom. The child would be perfectly fine not eating that way.

Actually the bold isn't accurate at all. Not only don't they posses the physical skills required to eat solid foods (let's remember they can't even hold their head up or sit up on their own) but the digestive system in infants is immature and unable to handle solid food at birth. Breastmilk/formula is highly dense in nutrients for all the rapid growth required during the first year of life. They would not be able to eat solid foods in enough quantity/variety to cover those needs. There is a valid developmental need for nutrient dense nutrition (breastmilk/formula) in the first year of life and it isn't simply because they "don't have teeth". That is an inaccurate and overly simplistic statement. How many mammals pop out and start eating adult foods immediately vs those that do nurse from their mothers?

They also don't truly chew food until they get their molars..those don't occur until on average 12 months of age. Teeth play no relevance in their ability to eat solid foods as most babies start eating mashable foods by 9-12 months of age before the molars have erupted.

I am assuming you are trying to equate having teeth meaning breastfeeding is no longer necessary and I don't think that is entirely accurate either.

 

[NotUrsula]

Don't ask me why it took so long to realize that attachment parenting isn't about the child avoiding separation anxiety; it's about the mom not being able to detach herself from the kid. It seems like this method of raising kids(and all parents do most things described, just nowhere near as extreme) is an excuse to be a softy and avoid reality.

I wouldn't say that at all, unless the Mom in question has some self-esteem issues. For one thing, dads are more than sperm donors, and in most AP families I know where both parents work outside the home, dads do just as much babywearing and co-sleeping as mom does.

Trust me, I have NO problem detaching myself from my kids, and neither do most other moderate AP parents I know. (Now the fringe is another matter, but then, any fringe movement always has people in it who have issues of some sort.) I'm not a softie, either; but like most parents I pick my battles carefully.

Next to the whole extending nursing issue, probably the best-known aspect of the typical AP style is that we don't do CIO. The thing is, there are lots of folks out there who wouldn't touch AP with a 10 ft. pole who also don't do CIO. Being a Ferber fan doesn't make a person any more superior than being a Sears fan does; it is simply an issue of picking what works for a given family dynamic.

 

[FlightlessDuck]

What do I think?

I'm surprised we have so may psychiatrists on The Dis.

 

[Nette]

That picture is ONLY for shock value, and without having read the article (I suppose I should do that, eh?) my guess is that it is supposed to incite a negative reaction. On that they succeeded. Both breastfeeders and non-breastfeeders and AP parents and non-AP parents alike are all up in arms over this photo. Just not for the same reasons.

 

[Hannathy]

Actually the bold isn't accurate at all. Not only don't they posses the physical skills required to eat solid foods (let's remember they can't even hold their head up or sit up on their own) but the digestive system in infants is immature and unable to handle solid food at birth. Breastmilk/formula is highly dense in nutrients for all the rapid growth required during the first year of life. They would not be able to eat solid foods in enough quantity/variety to cover those needs. There is a valid developmental need for nutrient dense nutrition (breastmilk/formula) in the first year of life and it isn't simply because they "don't have teeth". That is an inaccurate and overly simplistic statement. How many mammals pop out and start eating adult foods immediately vs those that do nurse from their mothers?

They also don't truly chew food until they get their molars..those don't occur until on average 12 months of age. Teeth play no relevance in their ability to eat solid foods as most babies start eating mashable foods by 9-12 months of age before the molars have erupted.

I am assuming you are trying to equate having teeth meaning breastfeeding is no longer necessary and I don't think that is entirely accurate either.

I was in a hurry and tried to answer quickly. I was being simplistic and did say also having the ability to eat adult food.
Yes teeth are a part of it and being able to use the food. My point was we as animals only breast feed because it has to be done early on, but we develop out of the physical need for it.

Some species are born able to eat adult food, Even mammals that require nursing don't nurse long, long after it is needed like this child is.
A child does not need to nurse at 3 or 4 they are physically able to get all the nutrients they need from adult food. Actually can do so at a much younger age but definitely by 3 or 4. By 3 or 4 the child does not need it it is being done for the Mom.

I actually think the picture borders on child pornography.

 

[castleview]

I wouldn't say that at all, unless the Mom in question has some self-esteem issues. For one thing, dads are more than sperm donors, and in most AP families I know where both parents work outside the home, dads do just as much babywearing and co-sleeping as mom does.

Trust me, I have NO problem detaching myself from my kids, and neither do most other moderate AP parents I know. (Now the fringe is another matter, but then, any fringe movement always has people in it who have issues of some sort.) I'm not a softie, either; but like most parents I pick my battles carefully.

Next to the whole extending nursing issue, probably the best-known aspect of the typical AP style is that we don't do CIO. The thing is, there are lots of folks out there who wouldn't touch AP with a 10 ft. pole who also don't do CIO. Being a Ferber fan doesn't make a person any more superior than being a Sears fan does; it is simply an issue of picking what works for a given family dynamic.

What's CIO? and moderate AP? I ask because I nursed for a short time, usually carried my kid but didn't find the stroller offensive, snuggled, didn't encourage co-sleeping but woke up many a night to find them there. Would that be moderate?

 

[Coconut36]

I was in a hurry and tried to answer quickly. I was being simplistic and did say also having the ability to eat adult food.
Yes teeth are a part of it and being able to use the food. My point was we as animals only breast feed because it has to be done early on, but we develop out of the physical need for it.

Some species are born able to eat adult food, Even mammals that require nursing don't nurse long, long after it is needed like this child is.
A child does not need to nurse at 3 or 4 they are physically able to get all the nutrients they need from adult food. Actually can do so at a much younger age but definitely by 3 or 4. By 3 or 4 the child does not need it it is being done for the Mom.

I actually think the picture borders on child pornography.

I see what you are saying.

I think the staging of the picture if one of the bigger issues with this..the alternative picture that someone else linked to showing the child on her lap and eating is very different than an odd pic of him standing on a stool and latched on like that.

 

[NotUrsula]

What's CIO? and moderate AP? I ask because I nursed for a short time, usually carried my kid but didn't find the stroller offensive, snuggled, didn't encourage co-sleeping but woke up many a night to find them there. Would that be moderate?

Sorry, CIO is "cry it out", aka ignoring a child who is crying because of being put to bed alone. The term comes from the work of an author named Ferber, and doing it systematically and without waivering until the child just gives up is sometimes known as Ferberizing.

I guess moderate is most of us who have nursed for at least several months, baby-worn rather a lot, AND co-slept to at least some degree. When I think extreme, I think of people like Mayim Bialik. (google her name with parenting and you'll see an example of my definition of extreme.)