Posted on 05/11/2012 6:37:07 AM PDT by Baynative
It’s safe to say the folks at Time magazine weren’t caught unawares by the controversy already boiling up around their latest cover, which features an attractive 26-year-old mother breastfeeding her almost-four-year-old son.
It was a taste of that controversy that convinced Rick Stengel, Time’s managing editor, that the story deserved to be on the cover.
(Excerpt) Read more at katu.com ...
That’s deliberate. The photographer was “inspired” by paintings of Madonna & Child.
There’s no such thing as bad press. The only folks who won’t buy it weren’t going to anyway.
They could have at least used a model well endowed for the task, instead of this skiny , politically correct weeny girl, whose milk generating equipment has a capacity less than a thimble, symbolizing maternal starvation of children.
I feel sorry for the kid, he is being abused.
Time makes little sense as it obscures election issues.
I stopped buying this liberal rag magazine in 1993 and have not read Time Magazine since.
I’m not sure what that lady has is 100% organic! ;^)
And that's coming from someone who has been a Time Magazine reader since before I was in elementary school, and whose mother was a Time reader prior to World War II.
Luce and the rest of Time's founders would be furious. They certainly weren't ones to place educated discourse and morality above making a buck through sensationalism, but I believe their anti-Communism and radical individualism would have led them to have serious problems with the underlying concept of extreme family bonding that led to this photo.
A FOX News psychiatrist had this to say:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/05/11/time-magazine-cover-forget-breast-what-about-boy/
The mom herself (who, to her credit, is at least married) said her mother breastfed her until age six and she still remembers it:
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2012/05/jamie_lynne_grumet_time_la_blog.php
I finally let my Time Magazine subscription lapse recently since I was usually reading the magazine online, and I couldn't come up with a good reason why I was paying money to support a liberal publication that I could read for free online. I now wish I'd renewed my subscription when it came due so I could cancel it over this outrage.
Errrrr , well, you get the idea.LOL.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not some kind of purist health nut! ;^) lol
Well, silicone and dairy products together, WTH? LOL.
Yeah right. Sorry Mr. Photog, your inspiration appears to be more the agit-prop posters of the 1960s with perhaps a touch of Da Da thrown in via the chair.
That was actually a pretty good piece you linked to. Sorry to find out Mayim Balik is one of these, er, enthusiasts. But I think she’s also a vegan so, whatever, she’s nuts.
I understand what someone else said about primitive cultures and how nursing is a natural form of birth control (to some extent) and it may be in some times & places that this was needed nutrition even for older children. (Like maybe if your mom’s a vegan)
And I did say before that I thought Child Services should pay that woman a visit, but I should make clear that’s because of appearing this way on the cover, not because of her breast feeding choices.
Our kid slept in our bed A LOT and I know many people disapprove of that. Not as an wee infant though, I was always afraid about her getting, as Juan Williams would say “smooshed”.
If they are correct, this just ain't right!
So basically she’s a big attention whore any way she can get it.
Yep. Got Milf?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.