Time Cover - What do you think?

[luvmy3]

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.

This American has a problem with it because I'm trying to raise independent children who by the age of 4.2 years shouldn't need the breast for comfort, and certainly don't need it for nutrition. My youngest and middle child started Kindergarten at 4.4 years old, if they are old enough to handle that, they are old enough to be drinking from a cup

 

[HelenePA]

Two things stand out to me in your posts.
#1: You said you BF him until he was 3yrs and 1 month yet you keep talking about BF a 3 y/o. In your case, your child was barely 3 when you stopped. In the case of the Time child, he is weeks away from being 4. There really is a difference, IMO. That, and the minor detail that you didn't parade him about on the cover of a magazine.

#2: YOU stopped. YOU had enough. At the age that your son was, YOU recognized that he didn't need to BF any longer and it was a comfort thing for him so you did what needed to be done. In the case of the Time mom, she is the adult. She is the one that needs to stop it. The almost 4 y/o doesn't understand that he needs to stop unless mom stops encouraging him.

why does she "need to stop it" if she doesn't want to stop?

 

[eliza61]

Just yucky. plain and simple. I breastfeed both of mine, in the good old days when one did things discretely. LOL

this is just nasty IMO.

 

[SaraJayne]

This American has a problem with it because I'm trying to raise independent children who by the age of 4.2 years shouldn't need the breast for comfort, and certainly don't need it for nutrition. My youngest and middle child started Kindergarten at 4.4 years old, if they are old enough to handle that, they are old enough to be drinking from a cup

 

[penn19]

In that second picture, mom looks like she is struggling to hold him! And while not as shocking as the first picture, still no bueno.

 

[MichelleVW]

I think EWWW!!! That's just crazy...it's on GMA now!

 

[Hannathy]

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.

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.

 

[joviroxx]

OK, Im going to be lazy because I haven't read the article but what are the reasons for BF'ing at this age? It can't be nutrition as kids are on solid food and getting their nutrients through that. So is it just a comfort thing?

 

[robinb]

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.

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

 

[joviroxx]

why does she "need to stop it" if she doesn't want to stop?

There are a lot of things I don't want to stop, but I do because my kids need to learn to be independent and mature. That's my job. Its not to keep them as babies for my personal pleasure. Its selfish, imo

Im sorry, but I find it odd if you still emotionally NEED to have that connection with a 3-4 yr old. There are so many other ways to accomplish it. Having a kid with teeth, who can yell for the mom's "****" and even spell it is just odd.

 

[joviroxx]

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

True, but we aren't in the wild. Animals poop and eat it too.....just sayin'

 

[Hannathy]

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

I was using animal loosely, mammals nurse their young. and the ones who do only do it till the young is old enough to find and eat on their own. But some reptiles don't even feed them and birds feed the babies adult food and only till they can fly and find their own.

No animal does it so they can call themselves "superMom" or soley to keep their child a baby longer, or only for emotional reasons. Nature intended it to be a food source.

 

[Arielle22]

I breastfed both my DDs until they were around two. I see no need to breastfeed a child who is three or older.

I look at it this way, I wouldn't be putting my other body parts (say my fingers) into my child's mouth to comfort them so why would I put my breast?

I feel for that child in the future. Nothing ever totally disappears of the Intranet. Imagine him in college and a friend discovers the picture or he is running for office and an opponet finds it.

 

[disykat]

I didn't finish reading the thread, but add me to the group that is pretty disturbed that the mom, a photographer, and all the people at the magazine would allow a child to be exploited this way. That picture goes way beyond breastfeeding. That is an almost 4 year old boy, who is identifiable, who will be heading off to school in a year whose peers could find a copy of that magazine on their coffee tables!

If I subscribed, I'd be cancelling- and it wouldn't be because of breastfeeding. It would be because of the sacrificial lamb they offered up for the cause.

 

[JennaDeeDooDah]

The title is what's offensive here, IMO. I stopped breastfeeding due to low supply at 8 months against my desire, but I am most certainly "mom enough."

This! I had to stop at 7 months do to low supply. We worked hard to get my supply up. I was eating twice as many calories as I wanted to be, but that didn't help. I was on different herbs that were supposed to help - turned out I was allergic to one of those. I would have likely stopped around 1 year, anyway, but don't anyone DARE say that I am not "mom enough" because of my nursing choices.




And, yes, there are other countries that nurse much longer than we do here in the USA. Big deal. In America, we have the resources to feed our children. Those other countries don't do it out of comfort. They do it out of necessity.

 

[fly girl]

I don't like the Time picture at all. It grosses me out. And I am getting tired of the "shock factor" publications are putting out to sell their magazines. It obviously works but it isn't for me. (although I am on here talking about it so I guess it does work . . . DOH! But I'm sure as hell not going to buy it!)


And yes, I breastfed my child. I have no problem with breastfeeding, it is a natural thing. But I don't care for the pressure new Mom's get about it. That they are less of a Mom if they don't breastfeed. It is a personal decision, and a decision any new Mom should not feel horrible about making. Geez!


I also am not keen on the total exposure in public. Sure, you can breastfeed in public . . . but whipping out your **** in FULL exposure is not necessary. You can be discreet! I'm putting my flame suit on, but I think women who whip that sucker out exposing everything are looking to start a debate.

 

[gwynne]

I didn't finish reading the thread, but add me to the group that is pretty disturbed that the mom, a photographer, and all the people at the magazine would allow a child to be exploited this way. That picture goes way beyond breastfeeding. That is an almost 4 year old boy, who is identifiable, who will be heading off to school in a year whose peers could find a copy of that magazine on their coffee tables!

If I subscribed, I'd be cancelling- and it wouldn't be because of breastfeeding. It would be because of the sacrificial lamb they offered up for the cause.

Agree! Mom's making the choice to be profiled, the kid has no clue of how he's being exposed to the world. I'm sad for him.
Parents have the right to make decisions for their kids. One would hope the big decisions they do make are always with the best interest of the child a priority--both for now and for the future.

 

[kidshop]

I was using animal loosely, mammals nurse their young. and the ones who do only do it till the young is old enough to find and eat on their own. But some reptiles don't even feed them and birds feed the babies adult food and only till they can fly and find their own.

No animal does it so they can call themselves "superMom" or soley to keep their child a baby longer, or only for emotional reasons. Nature intended it to be a food source.

I'll go out on a limb and say that most moms who nurse long term don't call themselves supermom. I'll bet most are like me..you would never ever know it. The only people who knew was my dh by the end. And I only tell people when it comes up about how weird and gross it is, to stand up for it a little. I think it does surprise them b/c they know me and my dd and we are none of the stereotypes.

Let's face it, Americans are made uncomfortable by nursing even tiny babies. With all the lip service it is just not common. A few weeks is too much for some, a few years for others. You can't let other's hangups decide what is right for you.

My dd did stop on her own at 3 years 9 months. . She wasn't interested anymore.

 

[DWGal210]

This is my feeling exactly. Shame shame shame on them. I'll be writing a letter to Time.

I didn't finish reading the thread, but add me to the group that is pretty disturbed that the mom, a photographer, and all the people at the magazine would allow a child to be exploited this way. That picture goes way beyond breastfeeding. That is an almost 4 year old boy, who is identifiable, who will be heading off to school in a year whose peers could find a copy of that magazine on their coffee tables!

If I subscribed, I'd be cancelling- and it wouldn't be because of breastfeeding. It would be because of the sacrificial lamb they offered up for the cause.

 

[NotUrsula]

No animal does it so they can call themselves "superMom" or soley to keep their child a baby longer, or only for emotional reasons. Nature intended it to be a food source.

In the defense of the elder Dr. Sears, he doesn't promote that idea, either. Nowhere in any of his books that I read did he or his wife ever come across as smug about their methods. The books are very encouraging, but never judgemental of those who for whatever reason do not nurse as easily or for as long as his wife was able to do; they acknowledge that she was extraordinarily well-suited for it for some reason. Besides that, nursing is only one aspect of the philosophy, which is more about the comfort and security of human touch than anything else. Nature does abound with other mammalian species that touch one another for comfort.

What both DH and I took away from the books when we first read them nearly 20 years ago is that parenting a young child doesn't need to be more exhausting than it has to be, provided that you don't force yourself to do certain things just because popular opinion says that you should. The core of the AP philosophy has always been that parents should trust their own instincts. For me, the compelling factor in nursing and keeping my child in our bed or close by was largely a convenience and cost factor: I didn't have to spend money on formula, I didn't have to wash or carry bottles, and I didn't have to get out of bed in the middle of the night. Yeah, our babies liked it, too, but I'm honest, if attachment parenting had been harder for me and for DH than any other POV, we probably would not have done it. We did it because it suited us, and I never felt superior about any of it.

I haven't read the article yet, but I'll say up front that I find that Jim Sears takes his parents' original philosophy of parenting into territory where I am personally unwilling to go. My understanding is that the article discusses the work of both the elder and younger doctors Sears, and my own opinion is that the son is much further out on the radical fringe.

PS. about this point:

If I subscribed, I'd be cancelling- and it wouldn't be because of breastfeeding. It would be because of the sacrificial lamb they offered up for the cause.

That mom has been offering her kids up for HER cause ever since they came into her life; she makes her living off of talking about them online. She's a professional mommy-blogger, which is a species I've got to say that I don't much care for. Talking about your kids lives in an anonymous forum is one thing, but putting it out there in your real name and with real details is something else again, especially when you do it to make money.