Posted on 05/13/2012 5:26:43 PM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
I caught Jamie Lynne Grumet’s interview on CNN. She’s the 26-year-old Los Angeles mother who thought there nothing shameful about being pictured on the cover of Time magazine with her 3-year-old boy sucking her breast.
“Our family is a little different than the average family,” she laughed.
But it was no laughing matter.
Time’s ungodly cover is kiddie porn dressed up as journalism. It will probably be a best-seller among demonically-influenced sickos out there who get off on the sexualization of children.
Yet Time magazine defends its cover, which it timed to coincide with Mother’s Day – the one Sunday each year when churches are filled not just by the faithful, heeding the Biblical commandment to “honor they mother, but also by those who do not otherwise attend church.
“Part of our job,” said Rick Stengel, Time’s unapologetic editor-in-chief, “is to provoke discussion and provoke thought.” But surely the magazine could have done so without exploiting all-too-willing Grumet and her little boy.
The L.A. mom offered a similar defense on CNN. “We weren’t doing it for publicity,” she insisted. “We were doing it to educate people.”
But of course.
She and her husband thought they would introduce the uninformed to so-called “attachment parenting.” It is the highly-questionable way of bringing up baby advocated by Dr. Bill Sears and wife Mary in their 1992 manual, “The Baby Book.”
It encourages moms like Grumet to breast-feed their offspring for not just the first six months of their lives, as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends, but well into toddlerhood.
It also encourages “co-sleeping,” in which a mom like Grumet shares a bed for any number of years with her child (and her husband, if he’s foolish enough to go along).
Ironically, Grumet herself is living proof that attachment parenting is damaging to children like her nearly four-year-old breast-feeding boy.
She told CNN that her own mom breast-fed her until she was fully six years old. That explains how Time’s cover mom turned out so twisted.
While I’d never pose with my kids like this, I’m quite disturbed at FReepers commenting on her personal pleasure. As a nursing mommy, I can assure everyone that there is NO sexual pleasure from nursing. More power to her for her choice, I’d love the fortitude to pump and then pour into a cup milk for my kids; however, 18 months is all each of them gets from me! Mommy can only take so much!
TIME Magazine is, frankly, over.
Like USN&WR and Newsweek, no one will attend its funeral.
Thank you for your comment James. I understand the benefits of breastfeeding infants. But do you approve of a mom being pictured on the cover of national magazine breastfeeding her nearly four-year-old boy?
Thank you for your comment James. I understand the benefits of breastfeeding infants. But do you approve of a mom being pictured on the cover of national magazine breastfeeding her nearly four-year-old boy?
That’s almost word for word what CD is going to get when he/she contacts the AAP. That’s provided that CD is honest enough to mea culpa and admit that he/she did indeed completely misrepresent the organization. I’m skeptical, but hopeful.
But do you approve of a mom being pictured on the cover of national magazine breastfeeding her nearly four-year-old boy? Yes! According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Breast-feeding should continue “as long as mutually desired by mother and child.” Moreover, “there is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychological or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer.” People have to realize this is biologically normal. It’s not socially normal. The more people see it, the more it’ll become normal in our culture. Go Jamie, I’m behind you all the way.
As my cousin very wisely observed, “He’s gonna go to high school with kids who saw that.” And mercy they will show him none.
I posted that because it seemed like there is an overwhelming bias against breastfeeding beyond age 2, as if doing so implied paedophilia by default.
I agree with Sherman Logan when he mentions:
“The human breast is primarily an instrument of nutrition for the young and only secondarily sexual. In a healthy society, that is.
Those who see kiddie porn in this photo are importing something from their own mind that isn’t actually in it.”
- Comment #16, above.
Unnecessary fixation of the natural function of the breast used for beyond 6 months of the child’s life with pornography speaks of a very, very sick and diseased mindset, more than anything else.
This is not kiddie porn. There is no sex act here. Feeding a babe-in-arms from the mother's breast must have no prurient sexual connotation in a mature culture.
The real depravity here is that it it child abuse! No child should be forced to carry memories into adulthood of suckling at his mother's breast. There is no way to predict or imagine the psychological basket-case this child or another child of similar circumstances will become due to this pernicious act.
Couple that with the understanding that this mother was willing to prostitute her parental duty and violate the trust of the boy for notoriety or some other petty gain reveals her truly aberrant crime.
What kind of sicko equates breastfeeding with sex?
I guess i don’t care what other people do as long as they don’t try and push it on the rest of us...which these nazi breast feeders do.
To me its just common sense. Breastfeeding is for babies. not toddlers. If they have teeth and can eat food then they should be door sucking on the tit.
I suppose if this were a third world country it might be a different story...but it isn’t. we have nutritous food in abundance and don’t need to breast feed for years.
My children were all breastfed for about six months. all are happy, well rounded, non-obese, straight A students. And since all are in their teens and none have had more than a common cold or the flu i would say extremely healthy. So seriously i can’t see what breastfeeding for decades would have given them that they don’t already have.
I resent the implication that if you don’t nurse for eons that your kids will be unhealthy, fat little retards.
Check out the cover - it definitely ain’t what yer thinking.This is disturbing and it was done to shock and sell their rag. Nothing in Time has much value anymore, so they’ve got to latch onto something to sell their leftist trash.
Using common sense is a rare commodity; and whatever sells is what they’re selling. Breast feeding a baby, covered with a little modesty is beautiful . . a baby being the operative word; but their aim is to ultimately present the extreme as something the bitter clingers out here do. In reality, the normal person is modest and reasonable about it.
The same seems warranted for Time.
I think it’s a personal decision for and by the family. If someone wants to breast feed their child that long be my guest. I’m inclined to think it benefits the Mother more than the child though. Maybe she gets lots of attention, even it some of it is bad. Maybe she can’t let go.
Also it was definitely shock value on Time’s part, and for selling magazines. I wouldn’t have a problem if the picture were of the Mother seated with the child facing her with his back to the camera. But standing on a chair? and looking into the camera like he’s saying, “see, there’s nothing wrong with it right?” and the Mother looks like she’s ready to leave for yoga class or something. It just doesn’t look right.
There is definitely nothing wrong with breast feeding, but it should and can be done modestly.
I have seen the cover.
It’s exactly what I think it is.
I saw mothers in Argentina breastfeed their three- and four-year-olds all the time. It shocked me at first, but it’s part of their culture and after a while I ignored it.
Best post on this thread
Nutty woman nursing her soon to be in analysis kid
She is a crusader....a nut.....coulda been Obamas Mom
What is not being said is related to the sexual rush ‘momma’ gets when the teet is suck upon. A new mother who breast feeds has her uterus return to normal much faster than a non-breast feeding mother. There is a ‘link’ between the nipple and the ‘groin area’.
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.