Yes, it still exists. I read there often.

I did see the Times article, but this is old news now. It was all over TV a few days ago,

Sue

Here is a link that might be useful: Hot Topics

Yes, it is still here. Look on the GARDEN side. I've only seen a thumbprint size of the picture. I'm not sure what I think. I saw an Oreo cookie ad which has an adorable 6-9 month old child nursing and eyeing an Oreo and the caption read something like Milk's favorite cookie and the picture was BEAUTIFUL!

Yes...I've seen the cover...and I think it's a perfect example of sensationalistic journalism!

IMO...the media should have a more developed sense of responsibility to the general public and find better ways to attract attention to their printed discussions and opinions.

However, they accomplished their goal. That cover has appeared on almost every news program and cyber news site today. I'm glad I no longer have to worry about explaining the world to a young person with an inquisitive mind.

Anne

Thanks--I'll find it in the Garden section.

The only reason I was curious is that I wondered if anyone besides myself thought the child looked older. The article I read didn't mention an age, but called him a toddler.

Redcurls, I saw that ad too, and I agree!

I believe toddler is considered age 1-3 yrs & he was reportedly 3 yrs old. He looked closer to 4 than to 2, imo.

Nevertheless, I agree with Anne, that the picture was sensationalism. I don't think it advances the "cause" of breast feeding at all. Yes in 3rd world countries this might be common practice, but we aren't 3rd world. If a woman wants to do this, that's fine, but putting such a picture on the front of a magazine is just a grab for publicity & is bound to garner negative, over-wrought comments, imho.

According to Time, the boy in the cover picture was four. The two other toddlers inside were three.

The article isn't about breast feeding so much as it's about attachment parenting, which includes not just bf, but also sleeping with the parents, sometimes into the primary grades, and using slings and papooses instead of strollers. The idea is to give the toddler as much physical contact with the parent as s/he wants. It's a rigorous philosophy of child-rearing worked out by the grandfather of the movement, a Dr. Sears.

I am a huge advocate of breastfeeding and breast fed my own DS into his 3rd year. I don't even remember when he gave it up. I think he was 3 but it was a natural progression without a strict timeline and no big deal. But that picture is exploitative and doesn't promote the cause at all. Actually it looks creepy and sexual in nature, not nurturing and motherly. A step backwards for actual promotion of breast feeding. I certainly can't associate my experience with that picture. I breast fed openly and discretely. Always in public. No hiding in the bathroom (ICK) or car to nurture my children. Using discretion and nursing openly without shame is a good thing. Pics like that lead to less acceptance,not more.

Wildchild - I know you don't need my endorsement but I think you phrased it beautifully "using discretion and nursing openly"

I haven't read the Time article but I assume the cover is a real mother and son. My first impression is that the photo totally ignores the wonderful bonding experience that Mom and child share while BF- there's no physical closeness, no touching and loving. If the photo is any indication of how they BF then it's time to stop - unless there's a medical reason to continue.

The problem with the cover is that it shows a young, fairly scantily-clad woman in her 20's **standing** and a child that looks closer to 4 than 3 standing on a chair to reach her boob and sucking. Provocative, for sure.

If she were sitting in an easy chair with him cradled across her lap it would have looked more like nursing.

I do have a problem with it overall. If a child is old enough to open the frig and ask in full sentences want he wants to eat, and eats it with teeth, s(he) doesn't need to nurse.

I nursed my children also. That pic was disgusting. And God help that little boy when he goes to preschool, kindergarten, any kind of sports or activities he may be in.

Another example of shock media. Nothing is precious or private anymore.

I'm sure she's a helicopter mom. This next generation is being raised over protected, over sheltered, I'll do everything for you, you are perfect and will never have to learn to deal with failure or disappointment in any way.

How will they ever learn to be self sufficient and learn to deal with life when "it's not fair"?

Wildchild, I couldn't have said it better myself.

I agree also, WC. Breast feeding toddlers is more about nurturing than feeding. They come to the breast for just a second a few times a day. Big deal. I breastfed my daughter until she was 3 1/2. I think the cover exploits breastfeeding in an unnatural way. But from what I hear, Time is about to go bankrupt....so they will resort to this sort of sensationalism....because no one wants to read their magazine any more.

Attention (good attention...not the kind that you appease a
child constantly with things...rather than time spent with them) is not going to make a child less independent. The more time you spend with a child...the more independent they will grow up to be.

The thing that always turns my stomach....quite common...you see it everywhere....babies in carriers with a bottle propped up. Reminds me of when I raised calves and hung a pail on the fence that had a nipple on the side.
That isn't mothering but it never raises an eyebrow.

i beileve he's 4 and the picture isn't nuturing or loving...i'm kind of surprised mom consented to it...

when my twins were in pre-school we had one mom who was still nursing (on child demand) and while it was a bit strange in the beginning, it became part of the day, we were in class...funny thing? it was in 1979-80, lol...

now for a lot of moms, it's pump and off to work...

I breast fed both kids in the 60's when hardly anyone was. When my son was born out of the 25 kids in the big city hospital, I was the only one who breastfed. I nursed both to six or seven months. Frankly I think the picture will set breast feeding back because it's so in your face. The kid looks old enough to go to school. My babies went directly to sippy cups and neither ever had a bottle. They had hugging and cuddles w/o nursing when they were four.

my friend said the mom was on tv this morning and said the child is 3. no other details.....

The news articles said he is turning 4 next month.

What is the difference between feeding standing up or laying down when your old enough to run? The child is getting fed right?

Isn't the point of breast FEEDING to gain nutrition for babies? If a mom or dad wants a close encounter they can sit and snuggle anytime. I don't lay down to fed myself, why should a 3 1/2 year old? I would not be bottle OR boob feeding at that point. It's more for the parent than the child anyway, so if she chooses it, whatever.
Breast feeding is nature at it's best but IMO if you can open a fridge and ask for a cheese stick it's time to move on.
In third world countries this would be (understandably) a fine line. The mom would could be quite hungry herself.

My first thought was the ridicule the boy will get in a few years if and when the magazine resurfaces at school. Wish mom would have thought a little more about the consequences for him.

Marilyn I hear you on the carriers and bottle propping. My own mother (who thought I was crazy to breast feed at first) was very critical of the practice of propping bottles. She would always tell me they were lazy mothers and babies needed to be held. This was when I was a child and I guess her words made an impression.

My DD talked about this recently. Grand daughter is due any day now. DD will be breast feeding. No bottles, no plastic mouth plugs. LOL We have noticed fewer and fewer babies being held these days. They live in their carriers, swings and cribs. Mostly on their backs. Seems like they view the world on their backs strapped into 5 point safety harnesses. Even high chairs have 5 point harnesses and recline. But her group of friends have recently started to move away from the practice. At her couples shower several infants and and babies were present. All were breastfed and all were in parents arms for the entire 3 hours. She told me many those present had older babies they left at home. Said she was impressed with their parenting skills and return to nurturing and raising disciplined,well behaved kids. I was happy to hear she has so many positive mentors in her life. Perhaps it is because her group are older parents who waited until their 30s to have children.

The cover was meant to shock, hence posing them looking at the camera -- as if 'caught in the act'.

That poor little boy! Can he ever live down this exploitation? (Interview w/mom on TV says he *is* 3.5; don't know when the shoot was.)

I'm no expert on this, but it seems to me this is not about 'nutrition'. It's about helping very young children feel secure. I think having Mom really *present* and available serves the same purpose once a child is on solid food.

Even good things can be taken to an extreme. Almost twenty years ago a friend's DD showed up at home after being on her own for a couple of years. She had a toddler-age child. (Surprise!) My friend was concerned because the child could barely walk. The mom kept the child in her arms or strapped to her all day. Talk about 'attachment'!(Whose needs do you think were being served there?)

I almost always agree with Wildchild, and I do through most of this thread -- except for the idea that it's optimal to wait until your thirties to have a baby. It's not just health-related issues, it's that I see such OVER-focus on these (often 'only') children! Stacks of baby books! Child psychology books! Books with developmental charts detailed to the Nth degree! Toddlers 'led' with questions to develop early speech. Kids NEVER let alone without adult *interference* -- to learn to think for themselves. It's all TOO MUCH of a 'good' thing.

I agree chisue.

Matti said: My first thought was the ridicule the boy will get in a few years if and when the magazine resurfaces at school. Wish mom would have thought a little more about the consequences for him.

My thought exactly. Poor kid. Mom should be ashamed, but maybe she did it for the money. Sad.

#1 it is developmentally inappropriate for a nearly 4 year old to be "attached" to his mother. An infant NEEDS that bond, that attachement. At around 2, a child should be figuring out he/she is a seperate person and testing the boundaries. At 3 they are going back and forth between babyhood and childhood. I think this way of parenting will be proven to be as wrong as the "superkid" or as bad as neglecting a child.

#2 it just isn't PRACTICAL for most women, and those who try and fail will feel...well...like failures, and those emotions will trickle down to the child. How sad is that?

The photographer did say the pose was unnatural, and that's what he wanted. Well, yeah, he got it. And we're talking about it.

PS I also breast fed both my children. The youngest until he was a year and a half, and then he only wanted it first thing when he woke up. He'd climb out of his crib (yikes, that's scary) and crawl into bed with me. When he actually started ASKING for it "milka mommy", I figured it was time to wean, so I'd listen for him to wake up, and I'd get out of bed before he got to me.

Chisue -- No where did I say it was optimal to wait until your 30s to have a baby. It was merely an observation. Did you see the word PERHAPS at the start of the sentence? Just noticed that my DD's friends who happen to fall into that age group seem less likely to do "child-raising light". They want to be with their kids, they adjust their hours a sacrifice $$$s to be with their kids and avoid daycare during infancy and early toddlerhood or having their parents do the raising. Where we live it is very very hard to be anything but a two income family but this group of parents works very very hard to nurture their children and have both parents involved in that nurturing with a minimal use of sitters and "institutional" care. They have my admiration and respect.

I wish we could edit our posts here to add to them.

Chisue - I agree with you 100% on the books and videos and push to achieve and be perfect little robotic lifeforms. LOL
Good early bonding and nurturing with a lot of time spent at the child's level is what I believe in. Babies don't need videos or flash cards. They need to hear mommy's and daddy's voice. Toddlers aren't enriched by trips to the museum of art. They are enriched by trips to the zoo and the park and the simple pleasures of digging in the dirt, splashing a in water and holding fat crayons in their chubby little hands. They don't need books on tape and books that interact with them. They need to be read to and see the pleasure mom and dad get from reading. They don't need ride on battery operated toys or toys that talk. They need toys that don't do anything at all but what they make them do in their active little imaginations.

They need to a be treated like the individuals they are. There can be no single script for raising children. Parents could read all the "how to" books they want but they better remember that the kids haven't read them. LOL

I'm all for free range children who are allowed to fall and get scraped knees and have lots of unstructureed time to play with other children.

I agree the extreme of over-parenting is as damaging or sometimes even more so than under-parenting.

Jasdip writes
"The problem with the cover is that it shows a young, fairly scantily-clad woman in her 20's **standing** and a child that looks closer to 4 than 3 standing on a chair to reach her boob and sucking. Provocative, for sure."

If I might be so bold as to ask, what part of a tank top, jeans and ballet slippers would be considered scantily-clad? And the child was 3 when the photo was taken, his father is over 6'2". So he might just be a tall boy for his age...

Sensationalism at its best. At great way to pit women against one another. sheesh.

Here is a link that might be useful: More to the story....

The news story did say that the child was turning 4 next month Deborah.

My mistake in saying the woman was scantily clad. I'm sorry. She wasn't. But having a child stand on a chair to reach a boob.....**looking sideways into the camera** is not about nursing.

Don't put all the blame on me for sensationalism and pitting women against women. This article was not about nurturing, it absolutely is sensationalism, designed to get the public talking. And it's working.

I stand by that if a child can get his own milk out of the fridge, and cookie out of the cupboard or off the counter and chew it with all of his teeth he doesn't need to be nursing. He's going to have a ball going into Jr.K.

JMHO but that picture makes me want to barf to be quite frank. Yeah yeah yeah breast feeding is natural and yadda yadda yadda...still, take a picture and put it on the cover of a magazine...WTH!!!!!!!!!!!!

I remember my mom(who would be 91 if still living) telling stories of the people back in the day that would have an older kid hanging off their b**b. "old so and so breast fed her boy till he was 6 years old!" She thought it was just terrible...HA!

Because my Mom had 4 kids in 5 years, she threatened to breast feed the youngest until he was 5 yrs. old. That didn't work out since she developed mastitis when he was about a yr old & had to wean him.

Back before birth control was readily available & there was no "PILL", women used breast feeding as a form of birth control. Ovulation is less likely to occur while breast feeding. Unfortunately it is NOT a real reliable form of birth control. In my mom's case she was able to get a dr's advice & had no more children.

Deborah_ps, I read your link. The TIME mom seems like a wonderful mother AND a wonderful human being. Thanks for the link.

Wildchild -- Thanks for the 'revised version' post! LOL

I do think it is unfortunate that women have been sold a bill of goods about postponing motherhood. Just read an article to the same effect from an MD, from the fertility and healthy baby angles. There is a reason we are most fertile and produce the most healthy babies in our early 20's -- and it tails off fast past 30. CAN 'older women' have healthy babies? Yes, sometimes. Heck, people are forever setting records for assisted births to really *old* women!

Thing is, a child is a long term *energy drain* -- although most of us are happy to be 'drained'! From the 'best interest of the child' perspective, younger, healthier parents are better able to meet the challenges. (Whether *any* parents, do this is debatable, but youth is on their side for endurance.)

I've recently been in the company of a poor 2-year-old child who is never 'on her own'. Either Mother or Father (both over 40) is constantly dancing attendance. She cannot *just play* without constant 'help' from a parent. She cannot have a minute of distress without an adult soothing her. I thought she was one very frustrated little 'performer', doing a lot of parroting to earn parental praise.

I understand that when you've waited for years to be a parent, the resulting child takes on a lot of your baggage. I just think it's sad for the child. And, to re-work the old saw, "If her child ain't growing up happy, Mama ain't happy."

IMO the Time cover is pure sensationalism. The mom, a model, is getting all the attention she craves as she makes the rounds of the talk shows. In the end it is the little boy who will suffer this shameless exploitation.

My opinion has nothing to do with the controversy over how long a child should be breast-fed. Length of breast-feeding is a cultural issue that varies around the world as well as an individual right to parent the way one believes is best. I don't think there is a "right" or "wrong" here. I do, however, take strong exception to the kind of sensationalism Time has produced with this cover--something our culture seems to thrive on. Obviously, nothing is sacred. . .

I don't know what's right or wrong here, but I sure have an opinion!! if it were my child and he/she wasn't using a sippy cup instead of a bottle or breast by the age of 3, I'd think there was something wrong with my way of helping the child grow. I think this is more for the mother than for the child. I can't help but wonder just how old is he gonna be before she says, 'ENOUGH ALREADY'.

All I know is, I breast fed my first daughter for four months, stopped when she was 4 months old because I was pregnant with the second. I "figured" it would hurt my own health or the fetus if I continued breast feeding while prego. The second child, I nursed for almost a year. I did have a "sling" for carrying both babies, I liked it beause it freed up both my hands. I remember my MIL berating me for breast-feeding, saying it was "animal". Yeah, well, I've never denied being a mammal. My feelings were hurt but I knew it was the best food for my babies.I think nursing past age 12 months or so is unusual. I'd check with LaLeche League. That Time cover was just sensationalism. Remember last month there was a mother chewing food and spitting into her son's mouth?

I think that any child who can unbutton Mom's blouse by him- or herself needs to be given a sippy cup.

There's an actress (maybe Alicia Silverstone? I can't remember) who does the pre-chew before spitting it into her child's mouth. Stranger and stranger.

Hahahaha, I'm laughing thinking of when he enters JK or SK.
"got milk?" "I'm hungry/thirsty, I need my mom"
"oh, it's time for my 10 o'clock feeding!"

I think by the age of 3 n they need to get rid of the da*n sippy cup and be drinking out of a regular cup. Hate those things. They're like new age pacifiers.

Then they grow into adults with the constant oral gratification of adult "sippy" cups.

I'm a retired La Leche League Leader. When I was active with LLL, baby-led weaning was encouraged, and it was not unusual for babies to nurse for two or three years. I don't think I ever saw a four-year-old nursing, but I'm sure they were out there.

I looked forward to having a two-year-old nursling, but my babies had other ideas. All weaned themselves before the age of two.

I've wondered how long Jane Goodall breastfed her baby. I remember she and her husband saying they took their parenting cues from the chimpanzees she studied and wanted to raise their son the same way. She breastfed him at a time when bottle feeding was more popular in the UK. Gorilla babies nurse for three to four years, and I believe chimpanzees do the same.

I don't understand the comments about wanting babies off the breast if they are old enough to ask for it. Newborns ask for it with their nuzzling and other signals. Older infants ask for it with vocalizations and pulling on their mother's clothing. When babies gain verbal skills, they ask for it that way. Each stage asks to nurse in the best and most effective way they can. I don't see the big difference.

We aren't chimps...really....HA! Shouldn't a 4 year old be on solids! GAH!

Shouldn't a 4 year old be on solids!

Of course. Babies start solids around six months, some a little earlier. But they keep nursing. Bottle-fed babies don't give up their bottles when they start solids, do they?

Do mothers with several young children have enough milk or TIME? Don't nursing babies demand-feed every few hours?

I'm thinking about my grandmother with seven kids, where the youngest was only Baby until the next baby was coming. Her children were about two years apart.

Also, isn't the idea that you won't become pregnant while nursing a complete fabrication? There must be a lot of "Irish Twins" out there whose mothers believed that myth.

Newborns nurse every two hours or so, but the feedings space out as the baby grows. To the best of my recollection, a one-year-old is likely to nurse first thing in the morning, last thing at night, and maybe before their nap and/or if they need a little comfort. None of these is likely to be lengthy.

Breastfeeding affects a woman's hormones, and many (but not all) don't get their period until the baby has weaned. Historically, it has acted as a natural form of spacing pregnancies.

I posted an interesting video today ("Speaking of breastfeeding....") I'd never heard of the "breast crawl."

Actually breastfeeding is a great time saver. No formula to buy, no bottles to wash and prepare. You can do it anywhere and once a mother and baby are in the groove it is easy to multitask. I ate dinner,shopped,cooked and read to my DD while nursing. Plus cuddling your child is the most important job you will ever have.

It's funny. My DD were talking just last night about this. She is having some pretty strong pre-labor contractions so we are on the phone a lot. She said "mom I am so looking foward to having this baby and I feel so empowered". "I'm glad I'm breast feeding too cuz I'm feeling too lazy for bottles" LOL I told her I felt the same way when i had her and her brother. Natural childbirth with minimal intervention is keeping it simple and breast feeding is a no brainer IF you ignore the advice of anyone who hasn't done it for at least a year themselves.

Now I know a bunch will chime in and say they tried but couldn't. I'll be blunt -- 99%+ of failing to breastfeed are due to poor advice or not going with your own instincts. Many breast fed babies are leaner than formula fed ones. Many lose a bit of weight in the days following birth. Some nurse frequently but for short periods of time and others are titty monsters. LOL It is not like bottle feeding. there is no right schedule other than demand feeding. You cannot see how much the baby is getting so young mothers panic. There is almost always enough milk unless the mother has an underlying health condition.

Doctors and pediatricians have mixed advice and are not the best ones to listen to. (unless they themselves have breastfed for a least one year) I was told I couldn't breast feed through mastitis (milk fever), I did thanks to a wonderful book I'd read with real advice from nursing mothers. I was told to give it up when I got torticollis due to the drugs I would have to take. I found a c doctor who offered an alternative treatment with drugs that wouldn't enter my bloodstream and milk. I had a pediatrician who wanted me to stat solids early. I didn't and after several visits of being told by him that DD must be eating very well and to keep adding more, ignoring my telling him she was exclusively on breast milk I dumped him.
I threw away the pacifiers (gift) and dumped the formula the hospital sent home with me. Had I used them maybe things wouldn't have worked out as well . Who knows but I wasn't taking any chances of anything coming between me and my ability to breast feed.

Here's an interesting article from Slate exploring the question of how long babies were nursed in prehistoric times and among more recent hunter-gatherer societies.

Did Cave-Babies Have Attachment Parents?

Your voice must have been heard, Wildchild.

Bottles, Binkies and Sippy Cups Can Hurt Kids, Study Finds