Time Magazine Cover

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Rebecca - posted on 05/12/2012

8

5

0

I wanted respond to rhonda's comment about teeth. God may have given them teeth so they may eat solids but, that doesn't mean they should start just because they have teeth or stop breastfeeding because they do. My oldest had 2 teeth at 3 months old and by the time he was a year he had an entire mouthful! I continued to nurse him until he decided to stop,at 15 months.
Although, 4 may be a bit too old for me, who am to tell her to stop. The boy obviously isn't being forced to nurse. That being said, I do feel this picture was intended to provoke upset in people and stir the cauldron of controversy that surrounds breastfeeding. Information about WHY breastfeeding is superior to formula and why extended breastfeeding,breastfeeding beyond a year is beneficial for mothers and their babies needs to be more widespread.

Alisia - posted on 05/10/2012

27

1

4

The cover upsets me because they are not portraying how natural it is to breastfeed. They made the picture "sexual" in a certain way to catch attention. There were other pictures taken that didn't appear as "sexual" but those wouldn't have been so eye catching. Like Dove said though, the comments I've read on it are even more disturbing than the actual picture.

I just wish moms would stop criticizing each others choices and would be more supportive of each other. We need more understanding that everyone makes the choices THEY feel are best for THEM and we're not all going to have the same choices. All this cover is doing is furthering the fight between moms on their parenting styles.

Rebekah - posted on 05/10/2012

1,508

5

198

I completely agree, Dove. I really wish the picture showed the mother nursing her three year old in a comfy rocking chair with his favorite teddy bear or something more typical instead.

Dove - posted on 05/10/2012

12,536

0

1354

I think that picture is doing and is going to do a huge disservice to the breastfeeding cause. The comments I have read are even more disturbing to me than the picture, but that is not a 'real face' depiction of extended breastfeeding. It was done to stir people up and to sell magazines.



A friend of mine posted a picture on another board of her actually breastfeeding her 3 year old and THAT picture I would have zero issue with seeing on the cover of a magazine. This particular picture that was used though... not ok.

12 Comments

View replies by

Ania - posted on 05/14/2012

703

25

62

I don't care, I don't know if this woman knew what will be the title of this article. It only made other moms angry. I have no issue with it because I am an extended breastfeeder....maybe that's why. The only thing that pisses me off about it are people on morning shows some called experts from the entertainment world , who disaproove

Anna - posted on 05/14/2012

206

0

0

I'm a mother of a nursing 2 yr old. When I first saw the picture, I felt very disturbed. My reaction was, "Is this woman nursing or modeling?" However, as I kept reading responses and arguements about this, I realized that it was done on purpose. If Time put a picture of a "Madonna" type mother from a LLL breastfeeding book who's discreetely nursing her child, who would buy or read the article? It would be barely noticed. This picture got people's attention and got the message out that attachment parenting and extended breastfeeding are normal and healthy for the child and are widely practised. So I changed my mind and I'm now thankful to Time and the woman and her child who posed for the picture.

Alisia - posted on 05/13/2012

27

1

4

That's why I said in better words, for what I meant, unnatural is a better word choice. The person who posted the question was asking for personal opinions on the photo though and not every person see's everything the same way. Our opinions and experiences DO affect how we see things. You have your opinion that it's super-mom pose and that is perfectly fine, it's your opinion. Now that you say that, I can kind of see it too. I just don't like the fact that breastfeeding and parenting styles are being attacked now because of this one picture. That's my problem with it. It's causing controversy on a topic that needs to be uplifted not knocked down.

To answer the question about why it's being called sexual, there is another post about it with more responses. Maybe you will get your answers there.

Renee - posted on 05/13/2012

20

5

2

Thank you for responding, but you didn't address the perceived "sexuality" of the picture. Unnatural isn't sexual by any means. I've read over and over comments saying that they sexualized breastfeeding, that the cover is sexual, etc, but not one person can explain to me why! I am sincerely interested to know what makes the picture sexual.
As for the pose, I'm sure that any other pose they tried didn't look right for a magazine cover.
Its funny how our individual opinions and experiences change how we see things. When I see her pose, I don't see a defiant woman at all, I see it as more of a super-mom pose, and confidence in her choice of parenting style. I'm sure she has to put up with a lot of negative reaction to her extended nursing.

Alisia - posted on 05/13/2012

27

1

4

In better words they intentionally portrayed it as unnatural. For me personally, it's not the age or the child at all. It's her stance and how they didn't portray him being cuddled like most women do when breastfeeding a child of any age whether newborn or 6 years old. The fact that he's on a chair to reach her and they are both standing also makes it look unnatural, which is wrong because breastfeeding IS a natural thing to do. She is also sticking her chest out with hand on hip instead of holding him in a nurturing position. There were actually other pictures taken that I came across online and they to had older children breastfeeding BUT those weren't portrayed the same way, which is why they weren't used. My issue wasn't with the child being 3, it's just with how they portrayed breastfeeding as something unusual.

And yes, I noticed the title, which is what I was thinking of in the 2nd half of my original post. They are pitting moms against each other over different parenting styles. Really every choice we make as parents is the choice we feel is best for OUR own families. We are ALL mom enough in my opinion!

Renee - posted on 05/12/2012

20

5

2

The fact that people keep saying the picture looks "sexual" really disturbs me. I would like someone, maybe Alisia, to actually explain to me what EXACTLY is sexual about the picture. It is a little CHILD nursing, not a grown man!!!!! It is a mother breastfeeding her child, and there is NOTHING sexual about the picture at all. Your PERCEPTION of it as "sexual" does not make it so. What makes it sexual, when a picture of a one year old would not be PERCEIVED as sexual? A 4 year old has NO concept of sex, so why is it wrong to show him nursing? His mommy's boobies are there for comfort, milk, and love, not as sexual objects. It is a problem in America that we see things in such a perverted way. In soooo many other countries, breastfeeding until age 3, 4, 5, even 6 years old is the NORMAL thing to do. Our society has gotten WAY out of hand with using sex in media, and that has severely distorted everybody's perception of things. I agree that the picture was chosen to create controversy and to get people talking, and it certainly worked. But in no way is the picture indecent, sexual, or disturbing to me. Would I nurse my little boy til he was 4? No, but only because I honestly don't think he will want to. All 3 of my other kids self-weaned, one at 2 years, the other 2 at 10 months. (Go figure!) I was actually more put off by the title, which nobody seems to have noticed, "Are you Mom enough?" Hmph, I am plenty mom enough! LOL

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms