Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Had the photo been of a little girl sucking milk from her mother's breast, the photo would have been far less provocative. That it is a male child who looks to be about four adds a subtle sexual element to it.
That's the point. They knew it would be seen sexual even just a little bit. Photographers aren't dummies. They know every construed angle people would grasp at over their pictures. There's a reason it's a male child and not a girl.
In any rate, I think the average person doesn't have any problems with breastfeeding.
I know it doesn't bother me if a woman does it in public. But beyond feeding her child, her breast is exposed. As long as she has a cover rock on.
The child standing on a chair, mouth on boob, look at the camera kid is trying to convey some kid of sexual tone. Whether intentional or not.
And these people always say how sexualized younger kids are getting. I read an article a few weeks ago mentioning how a lot of sexual assault is younger kids against younger kids. Elementary school kids touching each other. There's sex on TV everywhere for them to see and now there's little boys on their mother's boob on the cover of Time Magazine.
Had it been a woman, sitting in the chair, holding her small infant son it would be seen as "natural" that's the image of breastfeeding.
Baby is innocent. Little boy isn't. Does he get after midnight feedings? Walking into her room, groping her clothes and getting what he needs?'
Best comment I've seen from Yahoo:
Quote:
"Breast feeding is a natural thing to do, but standing on a chair and having mom stand there like she is a water fountain isn't the way to portray this
Exactly. They knew what they were doing with this. Shock and sex and it's working.
An adult would not be bothered by what you describe and nothing would be inappropriate about it.
My friend was breastfeeding her child in public on Miami Beach and some conservative had to make a comment to her. I informed the conservative that I was turning the safety off and I was prepared to stand my ground.
Well, aren't you special!!!!! Turning the safety off.
Oh shocking - a mammal feeding her child the way God/nature intended? We can't have that, now can we?
And it's now "immoral" to breastfeed? Or is it "immoral" to show a woman breastfeed? Or is it "immoral" to show a woman breastfeeding a three-year old? How about a two-year old? A one-year old? At what age does it become "immoral?" And how is a natural act ever immoral? And how sick must your mind be if you think the act of breastfeeding is "immoral?"
I understand if it's not up to your personal standard if such an image is shown - but my guess is that you are stuck on some standard of the past. Standards change - and if you don't change with the times, you are going to be offended quite a bit for the remainder of your time on this earth.
I just don't care how long a woman breastfeeds her child - if at all. It's a personal choice. To me, three years is too long - but that's just me. If it seems alright to her, than she obviously has the right to do so.
As I expected, people are confusing morality with whatever this is. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality and has everything to do with the fact that some things just aren't pleasing to watch unless you're emotionally involved.
I don't want to see a kid slurping the fawcet anymore than I want to see it pooping out what it slurped.
It's ridiculous to think this subject has anything to do with morality.
Oh shocking - a mammal feeding her child the way God/nature intended? We can't have that, now can we?
And it's now "immoral" to breastfeed? Or is it "immoral" to show a woman breastfeed? Or is it "immoral" to show a woman breastfeeding a three-year old? How about a two-year old? A one-year old? At what age does it become "immoral?" And how is a natural act ever immoral? And how sick must your mind be if you think the act of breastfeeding is "immoral?"
I understand if it's not up to your personal standard if such an image is shown - but my guess is that you are stuck on some standard of the past. Standards change - and if you don't change with the times, you are going to be offended quite a bit for the remainder of your time on this earth.
I just don't care how long a woman breastfeeds her child - if at all. It's a personal choice. To me, three years is too long - but that's just me. If it seems alright to her, than she obviously has the right to do so.
No reason to get my panties in a bunch.
How about 21 as the cut off date to breastfeeding as you are so accepting of it being ok and where ever they want in public on any front of a magazine would be appropriate too . Say if that strapping young man needs nutrition , just breat feed him.. keep them healthy and close to mother. Why have a cut off year at all. You don't care how long a woman breastfeeds her child. Your own words.
05-11-2012, 10:41 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cunucu Beach
Had the photo been of a little girl sucking milk from her mother's breast, the photo would have been far less provocative. That it is a male child who looks to be about four adds a subtle sexual element to it.
Maybe that's because some guys never stop breastfeeding
As I expected, people are confusing morality with whatever this is. It has absolutely nothing to do with morality and has everything to do with the fact that some things just aren't pleasing to watch unless you're emotionally involved.
I don't want to see a kid slurping the fawcet anymore than I want to see it pooping out what it slurped.
It's ridiculous to think this subject has anything to do with morality.
The solution, as often, is quite easy: Don't look. If you don't like the magazine cover, don't buy the magazine.
Sex sells, provocation sells, fear sells. Since there are people who are obviously offended by this cover, Time has accomplished to get endless publicity at a minimum cost. That's how capitalism works.
To some, as you can read in this thread, this is a morality issue. To some, it's the act, to others, it's publishing a picture depicting breastfeeding.
How about 21 as the cut off date to breastfeeding as you are so accepting of it being ok and where ever they want in public on any front of a magazine would be appropriate too . Say if that strapping young man needs nutrition , just breat feed him.. keep them healthy and close to mother. Why have a cut off year at all. You don't care how long a woman breastfeeds her child. Your own words.
If a mother want to breastfeed her 21 year old child in public it is fine with me, because I am not a pathetic little wimp who needs to control others.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
