Especially if you’re desperate to sell some more magazines and can find a way to work in a contentious issue for women and some boobs for the men.
I hope the guy didn’t make that comment with the proud papa standing right there. But who shows his coworkers a picture of his wife breastfeeding???
Oh, yes. The guy was right there. He even laughed. Not the sharpest knife in the drawer to start with. Plus, he was a bit overbearing most of the time.
That’s not the point. The point was that at 1, the child still seemed like a baby, so why would they stop treating it like a baby?
Perhaps a bit, but look at the additional pictures. The next one she is holding in her lap, and he’s falling out of her lap. He doesn’t fit. Then there is another woman, and her two kids - one an infant and one a toddler.
Yeah, it’s still controversial. But you are correct that the photographer deliberately set up the image to make it stand out as much as possible. He admits it.
What picture are you looking at, because all I can think is, “Can I be next?”
All I said was that the first thing I thought of when I saw the TIME cover was that picture the coworker brought in and the snark the other guy laid on him. There are some lovely YouTube pictures of decent looking women with better looking apparatus nursing kids up into late preteen years. This picture is weak by comparison for my money.
Bah here in the South Pacific we get an artsy black and white photo of Sachin Tendulkar on the cover.
… breastfeeding? :dubious:
And the child.
My wife nursed both our kids until they were 2. Yes, they were capable of saying “Ma-ma! Nuwse! Nuwse!”.
There’s nothing sick or disgusting about nursing a toddler.
This. I know several mothers who nursed into toddlerhood, and even did occasional “comfort nursing” of 3- and 4-year-olds. The mothers aren’t weirdos and the kids are fine.
Now, making a big public display of your childrearing preferences and getting all dogmatic and preachy about it, that’s arguably kind of weird.
And obviously, Time is doing this basically to get readers riled up. But it’s a tempest in a teapot, when all’s said and done.
Well he’s not breastfeeding but he does seem to be undergoing some kind of ecstatic experience - you be the judge
Hey, that happens to all women eventually.
I’m just worried that they might feel a need to put a brown paper wrapper over the magazines, which will invariably tear off in the sorting machinery, and I’ll spend all night clearing jams.
When your kid starts noticeably sporting wood at meals, it might be time to wean.
When your kid squeezes your boob into his morning coffee, weaning is something you might want to look in to.
If you’re buying nursing bras with money you receive from Social Security, you might want to read up on effective methods of weaning.
Great Ghu, if you thought “helicopter parenting” was bad, you ain’t seen nuthin’ yet…
More like “motorboat parenting” really.
This.
Sorry, this looks like a circus midget having the time of his life.
Time and People have now become the same magazine. It had to happen. The public isnt buying Time like they used to.
And I am of the opinion that beyond 1 or so is a bit strange. Let’s say you think breast milk is the best thing for your child.. then why ever quit? What if the kid on the magazine is 7 or 12? where is the cutoff? I doubt there are any laws, and who are we to tell a woman what’s good for her child?
Well played ms. Well played indeed.
FWIW… I have two sisters, and the three of us were nursed by my mother until we were well into our third year of age.
Current WHO recommendation is breastfeeding up to age 2, so clearly they feel 1 is too early a mandatory cutoff. But I’d have to say you have to be particularly committed a modern mom to manage that, so most post-1-yo breastfeeders would tend to be on the activist side of things, I’d warrant. Anyway, they’re just breasts, I don’t have an issue with it. It’s what they’re for.