Fitness Minutes: (83,912)
10,141 5/12/12 9:53 P
It was done for shock value and create a dialogue. It worked because we're all talking about here, right? My personal opinion...there's really no nutritional benefit to the child at that age. I think it's inappropriate to breastfeed at age 4.
Fitness Minutes: (16,230)
1,483 5/12/12 9:31 P
I think the cover was done for shock value. Shame on Time. Like so much of media today totally exaggerating an issue.
Fitness Minutes: (16,255)
5/12/12 8:36 P
I had an Aunt who breastfed her son until he was 6 and he asked for "titty"...that's too long! I think up until 2 or 2.5 is fine. Once the kid starts pulling up mom's shirt or asking for it by derogatory name, it's gone on long enough!
5/12/12 8:11 P
I also posted this in the Guys Lounge to get guys/dads reactions.
Only 4 replies, all disagree with breastfeeding for that long...no answers to my question "would you mind if your wife did it?"
Fitness Minutes: (37,590)
5/12/12 7:27 P
I always disagree with sensationalizing serious issues. The cover was meant to inflame. Disappointing.
Fitness Minutes: (5,698)
5/12/12 6:55 P
Some countries b-feed their kids until age 6. Not against it. But, our media sources really need to chill on 'sensationalism/shock effect" for news.
Tacky! Tacky! Tacky! The magazine cover, that is. I don't mind anyone breastfeeding in public if they're discreet. The woman on the cover looks like she's challenging someone to object. I may be old fashioned, but when the child starts walking, I think it's high time to wean them. I remember a neighbor who used to visit my mother when I was a kid. Her daughter (about 5 years old at the time) would be outside playing and then run in the house, unbutton her mother's blouse and start nursing. When they can unbutton the blouse, it's way past weaning time!!!
5/12/12 12:42 P
As a few others have mentioned, I take exception to the cover line "Are you mom enough?" .... suggesting that I am less of a mother because I did not breastfeed my child for an extended period of time. Is an adoptive mother not "mom enough"? What about a foster mother? Or a mother that is unable to breastfeed for some medical reason? It's the superior attitude in that statement that gets my back up big time. I also think the cover photo itself was sensationalistic, and does more to discredit that parenting style than it does to engage a reasonable discussion or debate about the issue.
Didn't an emperor of Japan nurse until he was six?If a mom wants to nurse her child who cares.however the cover picture was tasteless.
5/12/12 11:49 A
Exactly right about the "Are you mom enough".
Edited by: DUSK-2-DAWN at: 5/12/2012 (11:49)
5/12/12 10:53 A
Personally, I dont care for the cover, I think TIME wanted to sell magazines, The thing that I did not agree with was the headline "Are you mom enough?" That to me is more horrid than the picture. It's as if they are saying that she is more mom than other moms because she still breastfeeds an older child. THAT is ridiculous.
5/12/12 10:45 A
Totally agree on the tastelessness of the cover. She is defiant and the kid looks sly, like he's getting away with something.
If their point is to show that breastfeeding promotes bonding and closeness, wouldn't a better picture be of them cuddling as he nurses? Or maybe they tried that and it looked a little too close.
Would it be different if the 4 y/o was a girl?
Fitness Minutes: (11,796)
5,855 5/12/12 10:04 A
I am amazed (and gratified) at the raaction of the women on this post. I am guessing that the NOW group is pulling thier hair out. In the end, it doesnt make any difference since no one reads that POS magazine.
I totally agree with CRYSTALDANCER. Another case of how the media can cause unnessary concerns of the wrong kind.
Fitness Minutes: (127,497)
3,069 5/12/12 9:41 A
I support a mother breastfeeding her baby. I breastfed mine to 9 months old and 6 months old respectively. I never lost any weight doing it either! Not sure which women lose while breastfeeding, but my body hung on to every ounce of fat for dear life during that time.
I do not agree with the cover of TIME. I think with both of them standing there and staring at the camera it's more of a "look at me!" approach than showing a mother bonding or supplying nutrition to her child. I also agree that the kid on the cover could get teased by his classmates later in life because of it. Kids can be very cruel, and that's just the unfortunate reality. Whether or not his mother had good intentions by posing for the cover won't matter to bullies.
I am a private and modest person so I never breastfed my children in public, not even with a blanket covering us or whatever. I always found somewhere to go and quietly breastfeed or I stayed home. Not saying that's what everyone should do, but that's what I did.
To me it seemed vulgar in a sense, the position of the stand and especially the age of the child. When I think of breastfeeding I think of a baby craddled in it's mother's arm, that one on one bonding time. The Times cover was just really distasteful and disturbing to me.
Fitness Minutes: (114,301)
13,188 5/12/12 9:32 A
I saw it last night on a news clip and thought it made breastfeeding look sexualized. Not against breastfeeding, but it shouldn't be done where people can actually see the process, esp on an older child!
Fitness Minutes: (412,590)
12,303 5/12/12 9:29 A
I actually think it's wrong. Even a child who is that age shouldn't even be drinking out of a bottle!!! There are other ways to "bond"!!!
When the kid is old enough to ask for it the kid is too old. The picture is creepy.
Fitness Minutes: (1,022)
5/12/12 7:59 A
Why does everyone have to share everything. Is nothing personal anymore.
5/12/12 7:41 A
My biggest problem is the cover; not the act itself. It's personal. I would have loved to have been able to nurse my children, but for a variety of reasons; it didn't happen.
I just have thoughts that somewhere later in life, the child may be pointed to as "that" child on the cover of Time (as have others been monitored/followed because of controversial pictures in their youth).
As an aside, in the Bible Hannah nursed Samuel until he was weaned, and then took him to live in the temple to serve the Lord, as she had promised. One would guess that wasn't six months.
Fitness Minutes: (40)
1,068 5/12/12 7:08 A
I think the kid will be teased about this through his whole life, and it will have a very negative impact on him. It is mostly a non-issue to me at what age one stops nursing. Someone said it is like "nature's bottles" ...well yes, but most don't bottle feed our kids up to age four either.
I think that once a kid can drink from a cup and eat regular food, it is time to wean them from the breast (or bottle). I think this is also what nature intended because it makes common sense. But I don't really think it is a "moral" issue or anything that we need laws and regulations for. To each his/her own.
Fitness Minutes: (4,697)
371 5/12/12 6:53 A
I think it was distasteful to put it on the cover of Time - It is a personal choice. But it is a wonderful gift to give your children. Both of my sons were breast fed for nine months. It was a special time of bonding and I certainly would recommend it.
Think the pic was very distasteful. But if the point was to stir emotion then it was a home run.
5/12/12 6:22 A
I totally disagree, that boy looks like he is 6 years old and even at almost 4 that's too old to be doing that.
Fitness Minutes: (69,867)
3,526 5/12/12 4:19 A
it creeps me out
Fitness Minutes: (224,328)
18,795 5/12/12 3:16 A
I don't thing wrong with see anything wrong and personally feel is a personal decission that the govenment and everyone else should just stay out of a mothers right to decide how long she will breast feed her child. Those that oppose this should stop thinking of breast as sex objects and look at them for what they really are, built in baby bottles.
HHHmmm...ok I'm trying not to be judgemental here but wouldn't it be odd if a four year old cow was still drinking milk from it's mother or any other mammal who are nursed by their mother. It's just common sense, in the animal kingdom, mothers nurse their young because they are not mature enough to eat solid food, once they do they are usually weaned. Ok granted we are not animals. But if a child is old enough to hold a cup and eat from a plate wouldn't it be common sense to stop nursing... probably. You can bond with your child by nurturing through spending time with them, hugging them reading to them.
Oh, and yes I have four children and I nursed them until they were about a year for the record.
Once the child can ask to be fed, they are too old. The child on the magazine cover is way too old to be breastfeeding.
Fitness Minutes: (6,314)
5/12/12 12:20 A
I thought that the model who posed on the cover, and was interviewed on Nightline tonight, seemed very child-like in her verbal presentation. To remember being breast-fed at 6 years old has to be psychologically damaging. My 5 year-old granddaughter is already rejecting family opinions concerning her wardrobe or lunch items because of peer-pressure. Wouldn't a 6 year-old be a bit embarrassed being breast-fed if her classmates knew about it? I agree with the doctors who said that women who breast feed a child this long are really doing it for themselves.
Fitness Minutes: (356,447)
17,027 5/12/12 12:02 A
I totally disagree!!! I think it will damage the child in the long run.
Fitness Minutes: (220,940)
31,508 5/11/12 11:57 P
According to a dr interviewed on tv tonight, there is very little nutritional value after age 2. I find it disturbing and unnatural to allow your child to nurse when they are old enough to ask for it.
5/11/12 11:37 P
JUSTDOIT011: you make a great point, and I hadn't thought of it.
I think "they" say that having the closeness and connection between mother and child, the actual act of nursing that creates the bonding between the 2.
So does that mean that children who don't breastfeed that long don't have a close bond with their mother? I don't think so.
To me, what this mother is doing is part of attachment parenting, which encourages co-sleeping (parents and children) and nursing until they're several years old. I don't agree with it. As one comment on a website said "wait until the kid is 40 years old and living in his mother's basement, and we'll see how he turned out"
Now, I have never breastfed or had any children of my own...just a preface...
But I think it's great if a mother wants to breastfeed her child her own milk until whatever age she thinks is appropriate for her family. It's free, it's nutritious, it's natural. However at a certain age (2 years, perhaps?) why not pump the milk and then give it to the child in a bottle or sippy cup? Why have your 4 year old latch on to you, when you can pump and then give your pre schooler a sippy cup to run around with? That's the question I don't understand.
Fitness Minutes: (4,316)
1,418 5/11/12 11:10 P
DRAGONCHILDE, thank you for providing some information.
5/11/12 10:33 P
I strongly support nursing but past a certain point it is not for me. As for the picture -- I have too much on my own plate to worry abut judging others. I'll do the best I can for my kids...you do the best you can for yours. There are many ways to live and we all spend too much time worrying about how others are living.
Fitness Minutes: (15,905)
9,717 5/11/12 9:57 P
I'm only going to be posting once on this thread, because I'm an old veteran of breastfeeding debates, and they always end the same way. I nursed both of my children to 17 and 15 months respectively, and wanted to go longer, but they weaned.
I'll address each point once, because I know they'll come up, and I'll be done. There's nothing to be gained from this conversation.
1) Once they have teeth, they're done: Total BS. Children often cut teeth very early, and proper nursing technique doesn't involve biting. A child who is 9 months old may very well have teeth, but still be well within socially acceptable ranges for breastfeeding! That's no reason at all not to nurse.
2) Once they can ask for it, they're done: Again, BS. EVery baby asks for it. Some use words! My precocious oldest child weaned at 17 months, and could say milk at a year!
3) Once they're XXX age, they're too old: Nursing up to 2, 3, and 4 is biologically normal, and has never been shown to cause any negative harm. While it's personally not for me, it's actually not at all abnormal! It still provides immunological benefits, as well as emotional and nutritional ones. The World Health Organization even recommends breastfeeding for at least 2 years and beyond!
4) Once they're XXX age, it's about mom: Ask any nursing mother who has ever tried to force a child to nurse how that works. You simply cannot. The AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) recomends "exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding as complementary foods are introduced, with continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant." They do NOT give an age limit. Most children will wean themselves before college. I promise. ;)
5) It's sexual: Disgusting. Go away. This is unconscionable, and anyone who even implies it really needs to have their personal hangups checked.
6) What if the child remembers? I have spoken to many people who actually remember breastfeeding. It has never been with trauma! Breastfeeding past a certain point is as much about emotional connection, warmth, and safety as nutrition.
7) There's a time when it's no longer beneficial: False. Patently false. Breastmilk continues to be nutritionally sound and immunologically beneficial as long as it is consumed. Seriously, do you really think that the medically treated milk of a 2,000 pound herbivore is more nutritionally sound than the specially tailored milk of the same species? Please. Breastmilk provides all of the same benefits of cow's milk, and more.
8) We don't live in a 3rd world country, we don't need to do that anymore: This is just silly. Breastmilk doesn't stop being beneficial for your child just because you make more money.
9) On nursing in public: "Sex/peeing/pooping is natural, but I don't do that in public, either." One again, breastfeeding is not sexual. Any mom who has ever breastfed for any length of time can tell you it's about the farthest thing ever from sexual. As for defecation and urination: Seriously? You're comparing the act of eliminating waste from the body with the act of feeding a child? Do I REALLY even need to say anything to this?
10) It's about weight loss: Seriously, many, many women find they actually have trouble losing weight while nursing. Also, once you get past that new baby stage (after a year) they're really not nursing often enough to provide serious extra calorie burn. For most extended breastfeeders, you're talking a couple of times a day, for a few minutes. Not the marathon half hour to an hour sessions you're used to with infants. nursing an active toddler is NOTHING like nursing a baby. Believe me, you get more exercise wrangling those flailing limbs than you do from the actual milk production. I went from being able to pump 12 ounces in a session to not being able to pump a bit when my daughters were over a year.
If you don't want to do it, don't do it. Don't demonize those who do not agree with your personal preferences.
Your desire not to see another woman breastfeeding her child is irrelevant. It's all about that child's needs. The relationship between a mother and a child involves that mother and child. No one else matters, nor should it.
Edited by: DRAGONCHILDE at: 5/11/2012 (22:11)
Fitness Minutes: (66,181)
7,159 5/11/12 9:37 P
I think social services in the US are sagging behind giving parents wake up calls.. 200 million people in US jails says they need more power to slap people whom do abnormal crap..
I personally believe that it is wrong. If your child is old enought to say milk then they are too old to be breast feeding.
Fitness Minutes: (7,470)
5/11/12 8:46 P
I didn't breast feed for that long but I think to each his own and definitely doesn't offend me.
5/11/12 8:39 P
I think there is a time when it stops being beneficial for the child. Attachment parenting leaves me scratching my head. There has to be a happy medium
5/11/12 6:46 P
Disagree. At some point, I think that these moms are doing it more because they are getting something out of it themselves rather than doing it for the welfare of their kids. Once kids have teeth, they are supposed to be eating real food and not nursing.
I think she is using breast feeding as a way to keep her weight in check. Too big of kid to be breasts fed. Disgusting!
5/11/12 5:48 P
I don't think there needs to be a particular cut-off for breast feeding or weird stigma attached to it. I don't have a problem with seeing it, either. Feeding or bonding with your child is a perfectly natural act.
I think the kid might have problems being plastered all over the cover of a magazine when other kids recognize him and tease/bully/act cruel towards him because of it.
I think it's great that she is choosing to breast feed her child on her own terms. I did the standard 6 months with each of mine. I'm not that comfortable watching it, or seeing it on the cover of a magazine. I don't think I need to see someone else's boobs, whether they are barely covered in a skimpy dress or with a child's mouth. Just not my thing.
And I feel bad for this particular boy when he grows up. Who wants be the kid who was on Time magazine at almost 4 years old breastfeeding?
5/11/12 4:41 P
Any opinions on breastfeeding older children? How about the cover itself?
From the NPR article:
"The photo on the cover shows a 26-year-old mother breastfeeding her almost 4-year-old son. The reaction has been explosive and visceral and a lot of the more thoughtful commentary revolves around a philosophy by Dr. William Sears called attachment parenting, which encourages co-sleeping and carrying your baby everywhere and breast-feeding sometimes into toddlerhood."