Time Magazine Cover Shows Mom Breastfeeding 4-Year-Old Son: Did They Go Too Far?

No, Time Magazine did not go too far with their front cover at all. They actually depicted a grim concern that the mothers of this generation are the ones who have gone too far when it comes to breastfeeding and the like.

Reading through the comments, I wonder whether people voted on if they think Time went too far with this cover (the actual question) or whether they find breastfeeding a 4 year old disgusting.

I think the cover itself is okay, but breastfeeding a 4 year old isn't.

I also wonder how many people who are outraged that this cover (the COVER, mind you, not the content) is "disgusting" put up variations of THIS in their homes:



That's pretty disgusting, don't you think? And that isn't the most disgusting depiction of Jesus on the cross available, either.
Just a thought.

I was thinking the same thing... the survey has lost it's point.

the cover went too far BECAUSE. she's breastfeeding a 4 year old, they tie in together. If it was a 4 month old it would be fine.

Showing a mother breastfeeding a 4 MONTH old when the top article is about mothers feeding 4 YEAR olds would be kinda pointless, don't you think?

smh nvm

You gotta admit I got a point there. I accept the nvm, but smh? Why?

cause your not going to understand regardless, it's sick to breastfeed a 4 year old, and even sicker to put it on the front of a magazine.

Like I said, I don't condone the act, so we agree on that. Cool.

However, it is indeed beyond my comprehension how anyone can claim that a photo of that act is "even sicker" than the act itself. That does not make any sense whatsoever. That means that if given the choice and power, you'd rather tell the magazine to not use that photo than forbidding that mother to breast feeed her 4 year old. Get your priorities straight.
When you see pictures of prisoners in concentration camps, is your first thought "It's sick to treat people like that." or "It's sick to show me that picture."?

Exactly and I'm agreeing with you"
The woman and a child are in no comparison, to the photo of Jesus Christ. The picture of the woman and the child is offensive.
The picture of a woman exposing her breast to a 4 year old child; and putting a picture up for us to watch is offensive!!!

What? The image of a dead man nailed to a cross with a crown of thorns buried in his head, bleeding all over is a-ok, and "no comparison" to a picture of a mother breastfeeding a 4 year old, which you do find disgusting? Are you high?

How dare you try to compare jesus christ to a woman standing there exposing her breast to a 4-year old. I don't understand what your vices are in the comparison of the two.

What the hell is wrong with you people? That's a depiction of a tortured, dead man nailed to a freaking cross, wearing a crown of thorns, bleeding all over, with a spear wound in his chest, FFS! What is NOT offensive about that? And you worry about a woman exposing her breasts to her 4 year old son?
Do you see anything wrong with that? Anything at all?
And I "dare" compare it all day long, barby. What are you gonna do about it?

Jesus on the cross is the most beautiful thing ever!

Okay. Now take a step back and think about that. You are utterly disgusted by this:



...but you think THIS is "the most beautiful thing ever":



Think about that reeeeeeal hard.

Jesus went on that cross to take the punishment for our sins on him, so if we believe in him we will not get our just punishment for our sins. The other one is just showing off her body to get money. In real life they do not breastfeed like that.

Shadow, we are talking about IMAGERY here.
Jesus dying for our sins is a beautiful CONCEPT, but we aren't talking about concepts, we are talking about disgusting IMAGES, and the depiction of a man who is being tortured to death is pretty disgusting, don't you think?

Check this out:



or this (kinda graphic):



Beautiful, isn't it? It's a man dying as a sacrifice to make his people prosper, ensure their god's return and renew the world from age to age.
What, you find it disgusting? Why? Because it's the wrong god?

My point is: BE OBJECTIVE. Put things into perspective. Stop being a hypocrite.

Also, the other one is not "just showing off her body to get money."; It's a picture of a mother breast feeding her 4 year old son (showing less skin than any woman in a bikini) because THAT IS WHAT THE ARTICLE IS ABOUT.
What would you have them do? Put a picture of a cute kitten on the cover, which is less "disgusting", but has nothing to do with the content?

Why are you hellbent on comparing christ to a woman exposing her breasts and using it as a sermon to us"Dude" get a grip; she's nowhere near and never will rise to the religious spere of jesus christ' stop trying dude give it up; nobody's buying it, "for-get-it"

Why do you not get that we are talking about IMAGERY here? Do you get that? We are talking about DISGUSTING IMAGES. I am looking at this OBJECTIVELY, and I find the cover far less digusting than depictions of a man being TORTURED TO DEATH.
Do you get that?

Also, she isn't "exposing her breasts". If she did, it would be illegal.

So you are saying that she's invisible; and we don't see "The Image" of one of her tits out in that kids mouth???
You must be athiest to keep comparing religion to a cheap bitch trying to get attention to her itty bitty titties that are dried up and have no milk in them. So from a lot of people's perception, this chick is whoring herself out with her ugly self. Don't respond to me anymore pervert who's s.o.s.

How much do you see of her breasts? Less than if she were wearing a bikini. That's "exposing" for you?

I'm also not "comparing religion to a cheap bitch", I'm talking about the IMAGE of a woman breast feeding a 4 year old vs. the IMAGE of a man being TORTURED TO DEATH, something I mentioned at least three times in this conversation alone and spent 3 sentences to make that very clear to you personally in the post you just replied to. Apparently you are unable to wrap your head around that concept, so I'll break it to you again.
Do you see the difference between comparing some "cheap bitch" to Jesus - which I didn't - and comparing the IMAGE of a woman breast feeding her 4 year old son to the IMAGE of a man being tortured to death in terms of which is more disgusting, objectively speaking?
I'm doing the LATTER. Picture of some woman breast feeding her 4 year old son. Picture of a man being tortured to death. Which is more disgusting to any sane person?

At no point did I show disrespect for Jesus. Feel free to prove me wrong. The ONLY thing I said about Jesus himself (except how he died) was "Jesus dying for our sins is a beautiful concept". I may be an atheist, but I have no reason to disrespect Jesus.

How am I a pervert, and what the hell is "s.o.s." supposed to mean in this context? "Pervert that's saving our souls"?

I'm sorry to have to break this to you, but you don't exactly come across as a very rational or reasonable person.

Are you related to this woman?
You are becoming obcessed with defending this chick standing there looking like she's getting off on the kid sucking ( not feeding, but sucking) her mammary gland (her 'tit')

You really don't get it, do you? I'm not defending anything, I'm PUTTING THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW.
I already mentioned several times that I do not approve of breastfeeding 4 year olds. I just realized that most people like you finding that cover "disgusting" also consider the depiction of a man being tortured to death to be "beautiful", or at least NOT something "disgusting":
Does that seem rational to you?

No you are diverting from the issue,I am not interested In anything Time has to say. The but a woman on the cover in such away as to exploit her, because Time is following Newsweek in losing subscribers to biased reporting.

"No you are diverting from the issue"

No, I'm not. YOU presented
"Jesus went on that cross to take the punishment for our sins on him, so if we believe in him we will not get our just punishment for our sins."
as an argument for why the depiction of a man being tortured to death is "beautiful" because he died for US, so the logical conclusion would be that you also find depictions of religious human sacrifices in general to be "beautiful" because they meet the requirements you stated.
But since of course that blows your argument out of the water, you now claim I'm "diverting from the issue".

So DO you find all depictions of religious human sacrifice "beautiful" or are you a hypocrite?

Also, what alternative cover would you suggest for this topic?

You put the picture depicting someones vision of the crusfixion. That was your diversion, I merely politely answered your question. You keep ranting about and ignoring the poll question.

I already answered the poll question several times in this thread. I don't condone breast feeding 4 year olds, but I don't have a problem with the picture, which I find neither sexual nor disgusting, just kinda weird.

"Someone's version of the crucifixion"? The crucifixion is ALWAYS Jesus nailed or bound to a cross with a crown of thorns on his head and the spear wound in his side, often covered in blood. That is an image that you find "beautiful". How is it a diversion? So I take it you DO find the second picture I posted disgusting? It's hard to tell with your obscure sense for beauty and disgust.

I didn't find it anything, the Beatiful thing is what Jesus is doing in the picturing. saving billions of souls.

You don't get it.
This is about the IMAGE. The IMAGE. The IMAGE.

Exactly, are you following what I'm trying to convey to this dude; about putting the photographic image of christ up, and thus; is hellbent and twisted in his mind, that the female on "Time Ragazine" is at a level that is of Jesus Christ'

Nope, you don't get it. Was this too subtle for you?

"I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE."

How often do I have to tell you that I'm not comparing the PEOPLE, but the MOTIF? Are you slightly retarded?

Also, did you complain to the ratings board that "The Passion of the Christ" is rated "R" and you can't show it to kids? Because your point is that there's nothing disgusting about showing a man being slowly tortured to death, so why shouldn't kids see it? The ratings board people must be atheists! It's JESUS CHRIST! It's BEAUTIFUL!

Right?
Talk about twisted minds...

I suggest the same lady sitting down across the table from her son; and the question is asked does he look too old to be breastfeeding, thus the image would not be of her breast exposed for all the world to see. We the public don't know this woman; so why would we want to see the cheapened image of herself with her porn shot of tit in a big kids mouth!!!
This is coming back to bite her in the azz' and put a scarlet letter labeling on that and all her kids especially the boy in the "IMAGE" with her. There should have been a neutral photo, not the pervert shot presented to the public.
The way around this is to not buy the ragazine "Time has with her on the cover.

"I suggest the same lady sitting down across the table from her son; and the question is asked does he look too old to be breastfeeding, "

Seriously? Don't ever try to get an editorial job, please.

"This is coming back to bite her in the azz' and put a scarlet letter labeling on that and all her kids especially the boy in the "IMAGE" with her."

At least we agree on that.

We understand very much so why jesus christ life was given for our sins. Why are you fixated on that woman exposing her breast which in her and time magazine case; is room left for us to agree or not agree that the photo is offensive to the mass majority of citizens that the photo was thrusted in our faces!!! You can't make people side with you no matter how much you jump up and down, in trying to convince us; that the woman standing there looking like a total pervert with her tit full out; and a kid that big and that old (4) sucking (not nursing) her boob"
She's doing this for controversy and money for time "ragazine"
Jesus Christ on the other hand died for our sins, this chick is posing like a nasty perv' getting off on a kid sucking her tit!!!
What else is she training her kids to do to her body???!!!

First of all, I'm not trying to "make people side with me".
Second of all, I'm not fixated on that woman, YOU are.
Lastly, for the gazillionth time:
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.
I'M MERELY COMPARING THE IMAGES, NOT THE PEOPLE.

Do you understand?

Why would you have to compare the image of jesus christ, to an image of a woman with her breast sticking in a little boy's mouth; with a look on her face as if she's enjoying shoving her dried up milkless tit in a kid with "teeth" mouth.
Let's just summate this right now.
You agree with the image of woman and porno shot with tit (can't in good conscious say breast, because it look like she's enjoying it; and that nasty ass pose she's doing is saying it all, "PERVERT"
Perhaps family and children services should be questioning this person's kids. In order to find out what else is she training them to put their mouths on" because they don't know any better!!!
Now stop riding my dik' you are a perv"

Yes, Barb, I am agreeing with them putting that picture there although I do not agree with the practice, because it makes sense to use a picture like that, given the topic of the lead article, and frankly, it's pretty hard to offend me.
I do NOT agree with the notion that this cover is more "disgusting" than the depiction of a man being tortured to death though, which Shadow even described as being "beautiful". THAT's what I call "perverted".
Is that so hard to understand? Is my stance irrational?

I do also not agree with your description and your use of the word "porno". I mean, wtf? You consider THIS to be porn? Seriously? It's interesting that *I* do not see any significant sexual undertones in this - YOU do.
Let's one wonder who's the pervert here, doesn't it?
It's like a picture of someone enjoying eating an already slightly rotten banana, which is indeed moderately disgusting, and then you jump out of the bushes and yell "She's pretending it's a dick! PERVERT!".

The woman is still standing there with her breast in that little boys mouth. That's the image the whole world see. We also see you keep putting up the Crucifixion of Christ photographic image.
Considering that you are hung up on this; and keep coming at me I'm done about to let you just keep pounding at somebody else.
Christ's crucifixion is a religious metaphor of biblical times past. I've entertained your rants at me but now it time to let it go dude.
You don't know me, and I really don't give a damn what distorted pictures you put up. It will still not sway me in my opinion about the woman's image on "Time Magazine" with her tit, udder, boob, breast pushed in the kid's face is plain sick and distorted, just like you. Goodbye you're on iggy"
You're the kind of person who want to have the last word with your rants. Have them with someone else; stop stalking me freak!!!

"Stalking"? We're having a DISCUSSION, and you accuse me of STALKING you because I REPLY? As if I'd have needed more evidence of your irrationality... Besides, YOU joined my conversation with shadow.
I also find it amusing that you had the last word (or so you thought) and acccused ME of wanting to have the last word. Cute.

So do you finally get that I was talking about the images on their own merit, without the "background story"? Do you get that the image of a man being tortured to death is more "disgusting" than a woman breastfeeding a 4-year old? Mind you I do not condone breast feeding 4 year olds - I was just saying, and apparently pushed your Christian button because you seem to be incapable of looking at this issue rationally and objectively.

I saw a documentary a few years ago about a mother who still breast-fed her children at 10 years old. One minute they were chatting about school or whatever then she whipped out a boob and the kids were lapping it up.

WTF?