View Full Version : TIME magazine Breastfeeding Scandal
Djoser
05-18-2012, 08:11 PM
I totally disagree..
seeing women brestfeeding in public has become more common and more accepted. If it was an infant on that picture, there would be ZERO controversy. The fact that it looks like a 4-5 yr old boy, is the totality of the shock value. Its the point of the picture and the point of the article.
I repeat, if the kid was shown wiping his mouth after sucking mommy's tit, there would be very little shock value at all in the image itself. It's the fact that the naked tit is in the kid's mouth that makes it so controversial.
But we can very easily totally disagree with one another, completely and entirely--it really makes very little difference in the end. Time still sells a bazillion mags by manipulating the emotions of the all-too easily shocked American consumers.
Mr Hyde
05-19-2012, 09:58 PM
Unless that person is hurting someone else, you shouldn't.
I guess I am lucky that I live in a place where my behavior is not dictated by so-called "societal norms", whatever those are supposed to be. And while I agree that it is not customary to breastfeed a child who is that old, I for one don't get a vote in the matter, nor do I want one. It is her body and her child and, as far as I can tell, she is not committing any crime or engaging in any abuse.
You are also equating my feelings on this with some sort of...I don't know....interpretation that maybe I want a law passed to ban too-old breastfeeding.
I don't. I just think it's weird. If you think it's normal for a 13 year old to breastfeed...well, don't know what to say about that.
Mr Hyde
05-19-2012, 09:59 PM
Breastfeeding issue aside, I think that picture is unfair to the kid. He's too young to know what's going on. If I grew up and realized that my mother made me pose with her on the cover of a popular magazine while sucking on her boob I'd be embarrassed and pissed. Yes, breastfeeding is natural but how could you do that to your kid, putting him out in the public eye in that kind of photo? I feel like the woman was incredibly selfish to not consider that.
That is an excellent point as well.
But some here would say that you shouldn't be worried because it doesn't affect YOU.
Mr Hyde
05-19-2012, 10:01 PM
What? That's an odd take on the issue!
I saw the magazine in the store and I found NOTHING even remotely sexual about it. I thought the woman looked tough and the kid looked like a bad-ass. Their expressions indicated something along the lines of "I'm taking a stand about my parenting methods, what of it?" I can see why this was chosen as a cover shot. It's thought provoking. Brazen even. But when you think about it, the shock factor comes from how American people reacted. How can people be repulsed by something so natural?
I don't feel that there can be a double standard. You say that the mother on the cover is too attractive to be unabashedly nursing her child. Would it be more comfortable if she were older, perhaps dowdier, maybe even physically unappealing?
Pretty women, even models, even mascara spokesmodels(!) give birth to children.
I thought the mom looked hot, but it also made me feel slightly awkward. Like I was looking at a my sister naked.
Mr Hyde
05-19-2012, 10:04 PM
I will add yet another post to this...
Let's say this cover featured that same mom cleaning up that same son's bare bottom after he had just shit himself because he's still in diapers. The accompanying story told how the mom doesn't want to force the kid to prematurely be toilet-trained.
Would that be weird?
Djoser
05-19-2012, 10:24 PM
Oh but then it wouldn't be the shit all over his ass that was so visually shocking, it would be because he was 4 years old.
;D
Sorry, just trying to inject a little humor. Because nothing we say here is going to affect the next Time cover anyway.
roast
05-19-2012, 11:31 PM
I totally disagree..
seeing women brestfeeding in public has become more common and more accepted. If it was an infant on that picture, there would be ZERO controversy. The fact that it looks like a 4-5 yr old boy, is the totality of the shock value. Its the point of the picture and the point of the article.
Celebrities publicly breastfeeding or even advocating breastfeeding still is considered a major news item. Ive seen women anxiously rushing to bathrooms to feed their babies, I rarely ever see breastfeeding in public if I do often (not always but often) the person has all of these modesty covers & is all hunched over, frequently the baby is a newborn... I mean, it isnt really as mainstreamed.
The person featured on the cover is actually super rational if people look up interviews of her. She's isnt a radical boob activist or anything, she's said it isnt for everyone and it is just a family choice. That's not - I mean, haha who can argue with that. She also mentioned that she's never breastfed the way it is depicted on the cover and will just give her child it in a cup sometimes. People tend to assume those who do things out of the norm are extremists or are telling you to change when theyre just making a choice different from you. My understanding is many of those who breastfeed beyond certain 'developmentally appropriate' stages provide breast milk in various ways - not just a boob in the mouth. People largely have less issues with kids just drinking breast milk as a general idea but are farrrr more preoccupied with the modes of feeding --- aka a boob in the mouth. If you break that down, isnt that kind of stupid?
It isnt just about developmental appropriate because we all consume things that are nutritionally superfluous, I agree with Djoser it is about cultural norms around the sexualization of the boob. I admit I know my gut reaction to the picture was "lol wtf" but that's just unquestioned socialization and social messaging - not something based in any kind of logical reality.... which Time knew would happen on a mass scale, so they asked her to pose that way. Smart. Magazine sales have been dropping across the board, so it was a smart move on Time's part.
I mean, idk, not to be all "disinformation guys - question the like, system, or whatever man" but if you feel something so strongly for no logical reason - it is culture, not reason that is telling you it is stupid. Culture is just mob rule in storytelling form. Like playing the telephone game on a massive scale but for important shit like what to eat and how to eat it. The WHO says up to 2 is developmentally appropriate but Im sure they dont advocate anyone drink milkshakes, which lots of kids do - but it doesnt cause any kind uproar to this level.
Seriously. Kids in the US are barraged with the craziest food messages, logically are boobs any crazier than biotech foods or uh pink slime? A meat processing phenomenon virtually unheard of outside of the United States? Im sure somewhere where resources arent as as excessively available as in comparison to the US (uh, everywhere?) pink slime would be super controversial.
OK Im making really lazy comparisons but isnt a big justification behind extended breastfeeding nutrition based?
My own reaction to the Time cover was stronger than the news my 6yr old nephew has conditions that are usually (or so I thought) attributed to a lifetime of poor nutritional decisions... that's crazy. Where is my judgment coming from and why do my emotions give a shit? Boob shakes are probably better far more nutritionally sound for a 4yr old than a go-gurt - and I think most would agree. If the content is quality does it really matter if it is being consumed via a plastic tube or a boob? Most Americans would say it matters. My first gut "lol wtf" would say it matters. I mean, how is that distinction not kind of ridiculous?
Jay12
05-20-2012, 05:14 PM
I did not see anything wrong with the picture; nothing odd, nothing sexual, nothing weird. Boobies are first and foremost to feed babies.
lemiwinks31
05-21-2012, 09:28 AM
I repeat, if the kid was shown wiping his mouth after sucking mommy's tit, there would be very little shock value at all in the image itself. It's the fact that the naked tit is in the kid's mouth that makes it so controversial.
Remember all the uproar this magazine cover caused?
30386
yeah neither do I....
how about this one of Angelina Jolie
30387
remember the outrage? I didnt even know it existed until today...there are a lot of these magazine covers showing breastfeeding moms......but it never got the slightest mention because they were breastfeeding INFANTS, which the vast majority views as completely acceptable.
What makes the Time cover different from all the others is that the kid is going to start shaving soon.
rickdugan
05-21-2012, 09:55 AM
I repeat, if the kid was shown wiping his mouth after sucking mommy's tit, there would be very little shock value at all in the image itself. It's the fact that the naked tit is in the kid's mouth that makes it so controversial.
What makes the Time cover different from all the others is that the kid is going to start shaving soon.
You two have been debating this like the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I actually believe that it is some of both.
First, the kid's age is a bit unusual, which they made damned sure to emphasize by having him stand on a stool so that he could take the breast in his mouth while on his feet. But the sexuality concept was also in play, with a hot young mother with her breast brazenly hanging out while she gives a challenging and almost sultry look to the camera.
If she had the kid laying across her lap while she fed him, with her holding him with a nurturing look on her face as he looked up at her with wide eyes while he drank his milk, I doubt that there would have been a ton of controversy over that pic either. But the pic in question was specifically designed to exaggerate both his age and her sexuality.
Sophia_Starina
05-21-2012, 11:29 AM
1. First, the kid's age is a bit unusual.
2.But the sexuality concept was also in play, with a hot young mother with her breast brazenly hanging out while she gives a challenging and almost sultry look to the camera.
3. if she had the kid laying across her lap while she fed him, with her holding him with a nurturing look on her face as he looked up at her with wide eyes while he drank his milk, I doubt that there would have been a ton of controversy ...
1. Not really. The age falls in line with scientific studies such as: http://www.kathydettwyler.org/detwean.html
2. You are projecting your personal biases on an image. Namely you use qualifying words such as "hot" "young" "brazen" "challenging"... and my favorite: "almost sultry". That does not necessarily mean that the image in question has any of those connotations. Is the image contrived? Yes. But that which is depicted in the image is morphed and shaped by our perception. I see something innocent and nurturing.... others see pornography. If there is statistical and scientific data backing up the notion that this is normal (or at least not ABNORMAL), what's the problem?
3. Have you considered directing photo shoots? ;)
rickdugan
05-21-2012, 01:05 PM
1. Not really. The age falls in line with scientific studies such as: http://www.kathydettwyler.org/detwean.html
LOL Sophia. This is a worldwide anthropological study. Here in the U.S. in modern times, children are normally weaned prior to the age of 2. I'm not advocating this, simply pointing out why U.S. based readers of the magazine might have found the age of the boy to be a little odd.
2. You are projecting your personal biases on an image. Namely you use qualifying words such as "hot" "young" "brazen" "challenging"... and my favorite: "almost sultry". That does not necessarily mean that the image in question has any of those connotations. Is the image contrived? Yes. But that which is depicted in the image is morphed and shaped by our perception. I see something innocent and nurturing.... others see pornography. If there is statistical and scientific data backing up the notion that this is normal (or at least not ABNORMAL), what's the problem?
I have no negative biases against the image. Indeed, I am a huge supporter of breastfeeding for as long as the mother and child want to do it. IMHO the immunities and other benefits cannot be replaced (not for lack of trying by formula makers) and all of my children have been breastfed.
But let's not fool ourselves about what the photographer was trying to accomplish with that particular image. IMHO it was all about maximum shock value. If she was ugly, weighed in at 250+ pounds and had tits like tube socks with baseballs in them, I sincerely doubt that she would have been featured like that on the cover. ;)
missykrissy
05-21-2012, 08:26 PM
What? That's an odd take on the issue!
I saw the magazine in the store and I found NOTHING even remotely sexual about it. I thought the woman looked tough and the kid looked like a bad-ass. Their expressions indicated something along the lines of "I'm taking a stand about my parenting methods, what of it?" I can see why this was chosen as a cover shot. It's thought provoking. Brazen even. But when you think about it, the shock factor comes from how American people reacted. How can people be repulsed by something so natural?
I don't feel that there can be a double standard. You say that the mother on the cover is too attractive to be unabashedly nursing her child. Would it be more comfortable if she were older, perhaps dowdier, maybe even physically unappealing?
Pretty women, even models, even mascara spokesmodels(!) give birth to children.
You are seeing what the photographer and editor want you to see, then. There is nothing brazen or bold about bf or bottle, if you are a mom you will be criticized period.
My point is simple, they chose a model for this cover. Needlessly. Mayim Bialik (Blossom, child star, has a PhD) has written a book about AP, keeps a blog, and has a photo of her bf'ing her 3 year old posted on there. There's no way she'll be on the cover of time, even with her degree, she isn't pretty.
My point is simple, female models are used to sell everything, in all kinds of ads, cars, beer, computers.... nice to see a model being used for something that pertains to womens' and childrens' health issues. *snark*
Djoser
05-24-2012, 10:36 PM
Remember all the uproar this magazine cover caused?
30386
...there are a lot of these magazine covers showing breastfeeding moms......but it never got the slightest mention because they were breastfeeding INFANTS, which the vast majority views as completely acceptable.
Of course I don't remember that Baby Talk magazine cover--because I've never even heard of it before. It's not mainstream. The W cover is a little more in line with your point of view about the issue at hand (no pun intended). But still, you can barely see her breast and it's not at all obvious there's a kid's mouth attached.
But this is good:
What makes the Time cover different from all the others is that the kid is going to start shaving soon.
:D
You two have been debating this like the two concepts are mutually exclusive. I actually believe that it is some of both.
Good point, and I agree. I have said a couple times that the kid's age makes the image more shocking, but most of my posts have minimized this aspect of it, because we were debating the difference rather than seeing the bigger picture.
But again, it's useless to go back and forth about it. Time magazine does not care what a few strippers, customers, or DJs think. They are happy their maximal shock value cover (for whichever reasons might be most applicable) sold them a zillion mags.
lemiwinks31
05-25-2012, 04:03 PM
Of course I don't remember that Baby Talk magazine cover--because I've never even heard of it before.
You know damn well that you have at least 4 issues of Baby Talk in your bathroom, and the most recent issue sitting on kitchen counter.
Sophia_Starina
05-31-2012, 11:29 AM
Ahhhh... the plot thickens.
Military moms are being criticized for breastfeeding their babies. http://moms.today.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11955844-military-mom-proud-of-breast-feeding-in-uniform-despite-criticism
and... http://jezebel.com/5914543/were-seriously-debating-whether-its-okay-for-military-moms-to-breastfeed-while-in-uniform
cherryblossomsinspring
06-14-2012, 08:32 PM
Breastfeeding children that are old enough to actually speak does freak me out. I agree watching that one video made me seriously uncomfortable. Like I felt sick or perverted for watching. Ugg hate that.