But I like it even more.
PUBLIC OPINION > Time's Breastfeeding Cover Went Too Far
SodaHead Living
2012/05/11 13:00:00
Anyone who got a glimpse of the cover of the latest issue of Time magazine will have that image forever emblazoned in their fragile memory banks. It depicts Jamie Lynne Grumet, an attractive blonde mother, with her 3-year-old son standing on a chair in front of her, mouth latched onto her left breast. The caption is, "Are You Mom Enough?: Why attachment parenting drives some mothers to extremes." Regardless of the article's intent, the image is striking and, some feel, a little bit... provocative. We asked the public if the cover went too far.
Well, it didn't top Google trends because it was "perfectly acceptable." First of all, the kid's almost four. That alone is awkward to the max. What is he going to think when he gets a little bit older? Second of all, the photographer who took that also took pictures of three other mothers who are breastfeeding their older children. Must they use the attractive blonde for the cover? Some said it looks like an act of pedophilia at first glance. Defenders argued that the public has no right to dictate how she should raise her child.
Christians Can't Stand It
Typically, when religion and politics play a dividing role, politics has the stronger pull. This time, it was religion. Christians were 33% more likely to say the magazine went too far, presumably because of the image's borderline inappropriateness. Atheists, however, were pretty split.
Typically, when religion and politics play a dividing role, politics has the stronger pull. This time, it was religion. Christians were 33% more likely to say the magazine went too far, presumably because of the image's borderline inappropriateness. Atheists, however, were pretty split.Men Don't Mind as Much
Both genders sided against the cover, but men were significantly less likely to point fingers. It's tough to say exactly why that is, but some of the comments -- "I'm jealous!" "Can I take the 4-year-old's place?" "Crazy mom doesn't look half bad" -- offered a clue. Awkward? Certainly, for most. But for some guys, the kid is just an inconvenient obstruction.
Both genders sided against the cover, but men were significantly less likely to point fingers. It's tough to say exactly why that is, but some of the comments -- "I'm jealous!" "Can I take the 4-year-old's place?" "Crazy mom doesn't look half bad" -- offered a clue. Awkward? Certainly, for most. But for some guys, the kid is just an inconvenient obstruction.Married Mind It a Lot
Age didn't seem to correlate, nor did parenthood, but relationship status had a big impact. Married voters were 11% more likely than singles to disapprove, and 20% more likely than unmarried voters in a relationship.
Age didn't seem to correlate, nor did parenthood, but relationship status had a big impact. Married voters were 11% more likely than singles to disapprove, and 20% more likely than unmarried voters in a relationship.If you'd like to vote on this question, dig deeper into the demographics, or engage in existing discussion about the topic, visit our poll about Time's breastfeeding cover. We'd love to hear from you!
This fool probably breast fed until he was twelve, then he starting hitting the bottle. That's the booze bottle
Breast feeder till 12?
What is the fool doing here?
Or here... look closely at the phone:
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Here's Bush's ding bat mother giggling about the thousands of people crammed into the New Orleans Dome after the Hurricane. Damn, hundreds of dead floating bodies in streets of New Orleans is funny to the Bushie clan of nut jobs.
You acted like the eating kitties was photoshop.
Seriously I don't claim either side because of people like y-o-u.
But I like it even more.
It's called satire. It's mocking two current headlines. It's not quite what you're making it out to be. But, if you see venom and hatred behind every piece of satire, that's your problem, I, and a lot of people, saw it for the gross humor that it is.
You got anger management issues. When this country had the first Presidential race, the media went after them both in ways a lot worse than this. It may be crude, but freedom of speech has its pros and cons. You have to deal with the cons to enjoy the pros. In this case, my pro is your con. If you wish, you can of course turn me in to Obama's criticism police at the White House.
And somehow, I truly feel, if that was a critical piece about Romney sucking up to Clooney's $15 million tit to come out of the closet on gay marriage, you wouldn't have been the least bit offended.
this long after it is not needed...and I am sure there is some impact on the child as well...
especially at this child's age....does she plan to go to pre school and supply him when it is milk and cookie time....
Yeah, I agree that the child getting teeth, could be a signal.
Breastfeeding is God's natural way to feed BABIES, not children old enough to move on to more solid food. They say that breastfeeding tends to delay ovulation, but come on, it's time to let the body attempt the next pregnancy.
I don't believe in use of any means of "birth control" anyway, which is why I was saying, not to breastfeed for a ridiculously long time. What's the proper duration? 6 months to a year at most?
birth control.
What I meant was, while breastfeeding is said to sometimes delay ovulation, I don't think the intent should be to prevent more babies from coming to life, but simply as the natural and healthy way that God must have meant for most babies to be fed.
Large families should be encouraged worldwide, and use of "birth control" discouraged. Let people multiply and spread naturally.