The Time Breastfeeding Cover

[wmw999 2,560]

Good example of how being aware of "the rules" allows one to find a way to circumvent them when necessary.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jimmytavino 16]

creepy picture

can't understand the need to have the Mom standing AND the kid on a kindergartners chair, Standing....

there was toooo much of a "defiant attitude" expressed in that photo...

while i Do endorse such natural behavior, in a calm , seated, demure way.... once the kid is tying his own shoes !!!!! for crying out Loud !!! i'd say enough is enough...

or as my Wife put it,,,
" the First time he BIT my nipple,,, he'd be weaned " !!!!
while the story may be worth reading, the cover picture was printed, strictly for shock value.....We DO subscribe to TIME and i often read it, for the "letters to the editor"... which i BET will be quite interesting... in the next few issues...


jt

[billvon 3,090]

>I'm not sure I can tell the difference between that picture and child pornography.

It depicts an act that is necessary for the feeding of children. Some people may be turned on by it, so it might be pornography for them - but for most people it isn't.

>Personally, I think once the child is on solid food, the breast feeding
>isn't necessary or particularly desirable.

No problem, but a great many studies have shown that breastfeeding past solid food start has a lot of benefits for kids.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

It depicts an act that is necessary for the feeding of children.

Giving a small child a bath could be considered necessary for general hygiene, so your argument is also valid for putting naked pictures of 3 year olds on the cover of the magazine.

The cover was done for shock value, and yes there are probably some sick people looking at it and pleasuring themselves.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[billvon 3,090]

>so your argument is also valid for putting naked pictures of 3 year olds on
>the cover of the magazine.

And if there was general societal opposition to bathing children, and the picture was of a 3 year old in a bathtub - then it would have been as scandalous (and applicable) a cover, yes.

>and yes there are probably some sick people looking at it and pleasuring
>themselves.

Of course. And I am sure there are sick people "pleasuring themselves" to the Time covers of Warren Buffett or Sarah Palin. That in and of itself does not make it pornography (although you could argue it is for those specific people.)

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I'm not sure I can tell the difference between that picture and child pornography.

If that is the case, I would suggest you have a problem. There is nothing remotely sexual or sensual about that picture.

[DiverMike 5]

Quote

And if there was general societal opposition to bathing children, and the picture was of a 3 year old in a bathtub - then it would have been as scandalous (and applicable) a cover, yes.

I can't follow your logic. Regardless of societal acceptance of bathing, a naked 3 year old on the cover would be scandalous.

I find fault with your assertation that since it depicts a necessary function it is appropriate to be on the cover of a magazine. Sex is necessary for procreation, but a 'money shot' on the cover of Time magazine would be inappropriate.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[billvon 3,090]

>I find fault with your assertation that since it depicts a necessary function
>it is appropriate to be on the cover of a magazine.

A picture that depicts the subject of an article is certainly pertinent. It might also be inappropriate.

>Sex is necessary for procreation, but a 'money shot' on the cover of Time
>magazine would be inappropriate.

There HAVE been two Time covers depicting sex. I'm sure you wouldn't consider them "money shots." (But then again, neither was this cover.)

[DiverMike 5]

My fault - I thought we were discussing if it was appropriate rather than pertinent to display that picture on the cover.

I do feel like we are feeding a Troll, which is what I think Time Magazine wanted.

For the same reason I jump off a perfectly good diving board.

[billvon 3,090]

>I do feel like we are feeding a Troll, which is what I think Time Magazine wanted.

I agree. A cover showing a picture of a very small 18 month old breastfeeding would not have attracted as much attention - but Time does not make money by being ignored.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

much beyond that, we find it a bit distressing and creepy

Me to, however, that doesn't mean breastfeeding a 3 yo is wrong. In many cultures it's not abnormal, and there's research that suggests prolonged nursing is advantageous for the child (up to 2-3 years or so)(and mother too IIRC) which in turn suggests nature intended it that way.

OTOH, it's obvious that nature also intends 14 yo girls to have babies because the baby plant is usually up and running by then. Let's say I'm not the kind of guy that automatically assumes something is best or even right because it's natural.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Sex is necessary for procreation, but a 'money shot' on the cover of Time magazine would be inappropriate.

Also would be useless for procreation, which (wait for it) blows a (wait for it again) hole, in your example

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

Sex is necessary for procreation, but a 'money shot' on the cover of Time magazine would be inappropriate.

Also would be useless for procreation, which (wait for it) blows a (wait for it again) hole, in your example

I've thought about this some more....

I find it highly unlikely that shot was taken during a feeding. It was most likely posed. It was therefore not necessary to the feeding of the child or, in fact, anything natural. It might have depicted something natural, but so does the Kama Sutra. I don't think we can say that it is justified by the fact that so many people do it. More people have sex. It isn't justified as political expression. That would open a huge door to portraying sex on magazine covers.

I really have a hard time understanding how this is not exploitive of the child in the picture. The child was unlikely to be breast feeding at the time. He was sucking on a breast for the camera so mom could make money. Is it just because of the family relation? So if it's incestuous, it's ok?

I think every argument in favor of this cover leads in a direction that most people really don't want to go.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Quote

I'd agree with you, its unprofessional.... breast feeding is also unacceptable at a business meeting.

Not necessarily always; depending on the situation and how it's done.

Well, counselor, you present your case as if there were no other options...yet there were.

- a pre-prepared bottle and a babysitter would have been one of those options.

...unless, of course, Mom was totally against anything and everything other than b-feeding for the youngster.
I wouldn't agree with that approach myself.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

- a pre-prepared bottle and a babysitter would have been one of those options.

I made it clear in my post that the kid was on a 100% breast milk diet at the time, so using other-than-breast milk was not an option; plus the fact that this woman had a lot of trouble expressing breast milk for bottle-feeding it.

I also made it clear that all of us in the room were perfectly fine with it. What I didn't detail is that my colleague expected to have to take frequent breaks out of the room to feed the baby, and offered to do so, but we all told her to feel free to stay in the room.

She wasn't acting "militant" about it in any way. By her demeanor, if she'd sensed that anyone was uncomfortable, she would have just excused herself from the room for a few minutes. It was 100% professional.

[davjohns 1]

Under the circumstances Andy describes, I would have consented to the feeding in the conference room as well. It would have been unusual, and I'm not sure I would call it highly professional, but perfectly understandable. Given some of the negotiations I've been in, it could have been closer to 'professional' than other meetings.

I think there is a distinct difference between this consenual scenario based on need and the Time cover.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I think every argument in favor of this cover leads in a direction that most people really don't want to go.

And I think that sexualizing the picture reveals more about the person doing so than they probably would want to.

It's breast feeding. Granted breast feeding at an age I personalyl am not comfortable with, but it is still breast feeding. Nothing sexual about it.

Quote

It isn't justified as political expression. That would open a huge door to portraying sex on magazine covers.

God forbid

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I think every argument in favor of this cover leads in a direction that most people really don't want to go.

And I think that sexualizing the picture reveals more about the person doing so than they probably would want to.

It's breast feeding. Granted breast feeding at an age I personalyl am not comfortable with, but it is still breast feeding. Nothing sexual about it.

Quote

It isn't justified as political expression. That would open a huge door to portraying sex on magazine covers.

God forbid

I'm not sure you read my post. It is highly unlikely that boy was breastfeeding for nourishment when a photographer snuck up and snapped a picture. It was staged. Therefore, it was not breastfeeding. It was a photoshoot. I think that pushes it over into portrayal of a natural act that is ordinarily done in private for political purposes. That opens the door to pictures portraying other natural acts to incite political debate. How far down this road are we willing to go? To involve children?

Again...I had to read the caption at the bottom of the cover to figure out it was about breastfeeding. I saw no nurturing, loving mother in that picture. I've seen plenty of women breastfeeding. It didn't look like that.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

I've seen plenty of women breastfeeding.

Guess the act isn't that ordinarily done in private then?

Quote

It didn't look like that.

Right, cause mostly when you see mother's breastfeed, the kid can't stand and is quite a bit smaller. Which off course is the whole point of the picture. (Not sure how politics plays into this, but I haven't read the actual article. Does the article politize the act of breast feeding?)

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

I've seen plenty of women breastfeeding.

Guess the act isn't that ordinarily done in private then?

Quote

It didn't look like that.

Right, cause mostly when you see mother's breastfeed, the kid can't stand and is quite a bit smaller. Which off course is the whole point of the picture. (Not sure how politics plays into this, but I haven't read the actual article. Does the article politize the act of breast feeding?)

1. Never have I seen a chair used. Never have I seen the two staring at a camera. Never have I seen the mother's face look like that. Etc. I've seen it done discreetly in a home and occassionally with a woman in a secluded, quiet area that I happend upon. Never on a magazine cover.

2. We're discussing this in SC and you ask if it politicized the act? Really?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

I made it clear in my post that the kid was on a 100% breast milk diet at the time,...

I also made it clear that all of us in the room were perfectly fine with it....

Yes, you did. She elected to dispose of those options and you guys were fine with it.

Quote

She wasn't acting "militant" about it in any way

Much to her credit!

Your one event worked out well for you guys.,, and that's all well and good. Yes, there are exceptions to every "rule". You guys worked one out.

My point was there were other options. Whether or not she, or you, elected to exercise them was up to you guys. Not me.

My point was, if there are other options, and there always is, then it would be better to take those options in a business setting. I'll not delve into interpersonal or private settings.

Just out of curiosity, why was she so adamant about 100% b-fed? She have some specific reasons for not using pre-prepared formulas available as a temporary substitutes?

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Just out of curiosity, why was she so adamant about 100% b-fed? She have some specific reasons for not using pre-prepared formulas available as a temporary substitutes?

I really have no idea or recollection why, this long after the event. Maybe preference, maybe doctor's encouragement, maybe just not wanting to risk the kid getting colicky or diarrhea from a sudden switch to an unfamiliar diet. Babies' guts can be weird that way sometimes.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

I feel bad for that kid. That picture is going to haunt him for he rest of his life...

Yes, it is . . .

Time's breastfeeding cover: the meme

(Some funny pics in the slideshow.)

But hopefully with our collective limited attention span, we will have forgotten all about this by the time he's old enough to know what happened.

[davjohns 1]

Hysterical.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,090]

>Just out of curiosity, why was she so adamant about 100% b-fed? She have some
>specific reasons for not using pre-prepared formulas available as a temporary
>substitutes?

It's pretty important to breast feed for the first six months for the health of the baby. Sometimes if they try to switch the baby to bottled formula:

-the kid won't take it at all
-the kid takes it and since many formulas are sweeter than mother's milk, won't go back to the breast
-the kid takes it and has GI problems due to the switchover

In general it's not a good idea to try to make that switch before six months unless there's another problem (like allergies or lactation problems or special dietary needs by the infant) that forces the issue.