What the hell?
The ridiculous cover of Time magazine on attachment parenting is pretty close to child porn.
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
May 10th, 2012 at 10:15 am
Lucky kid…
May 10th, 2012 at 10:23 am
Kind of interesting – if the boy is actually her son, not porn. If it isn’t…. well. Also makes me wonder if it’s Photoshopped to get around any legal issues.
There are plenty of people who breast feed their kids well past what normal people would consider acceptable. I’ve heard of 12 year olds still getting the boob.
May 10th, 2012 at 10:30 am
I haven’t seen it yet because I don’t own a Doctor’s office!
May 10th, 2012 at 10:49 am
Wow, when they say “attachment” they really mean it.
May 10th, 2012 at 10:58 am
“I’ve heard of 12 year olds still getting the boob.”
!!!!!!!
May 10th, 2012 at 11:00 am
If it qualifies as child porn, it doesn’t matter if it’s Photoshopped or not.
May 10th, 2012 at 12:20 pm
Porn or not (and IMO pictures of kids nursing should not be considered porn) it is definitely exploitative. It’s so slimy in a TIME magazine way, and that is what gives the impression that it is ‘dirty’.
Epic redundancy: “…ridiculous cover of Time magazine…”
May 10th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
It used to be common to breast feed well into the 4th and 5th years, and it was (and is) good for brain development and immune system development.
It wasnt put on the covers of magazines, but I dont have an issue with it. Its not a sexual thing, so is it really porn?
May 10th, 2012 at 12:53 pm
The REAL Question though is why is TIME is still in Business?
May 10th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
Time is what the News Sentinel would be if they had a bigger stage.
May 10th, 2012 at 1:51 pm
That image does not resemble “child porn” in the slightest – “child porn” is an image that sexualizes the child (either as an object or participant), right?
And, uh, I ain’t seeing even a shadow of a hint of that here.
Who’s this notionally meant to titillate? Nobody.
Who’s showing any hint of sexualization in that picture? Nobody.
May 10th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
it’s more about age appropriate behavior I think
May 10th, 2012 at 2:35 pm
You could put a “lady liberty” tiara on the mother, and replace the kid with “Julia” and you’d have a Obama’s new campaign poster.
May 10th, 2012 at 2:59 pm
Oh Dear…..
Tools –> History –> Clear All Browsing Data
May 10th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
To be fair, it’s more like porn and a child.
Nice tata, but those attachment parenting types are looney tunes. My soon-to-be-ex-SIL is one. Totally batshit.
May 10th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
I’m guessing that this one is bizarre and controversial enough to be collectible.
May 10th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
I have son who was once twelve, back when my baud rate was around 15k. I would let him on the innernut, because they had ‘putors in his school. One fine day, I realize that my son is better than me, at more than Nintendo. He had discovered Nabokov. Or, at least, the ‘L-word’. I won’t type it. I also have a daughter. Long story short, son gets a looooong talking to. Whole nine yards, and then ‘sommore.
May 10th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
She looks of legal age to me.
May 10th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
@ ctr:
May 10th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
It’s CP if that kid isn’t an 18+ year old midget.
If a prosecutor takes an interest in this, Time is screwed.
May 11th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Kristopher, great title for Booker T’s next album.
May 11th, 2012 at 10:00 am
The kid having a stupid grin and two thumbs up may be more fitting.
May 15th, 2012 at 8:40 am
Breast feeding is not pornography, you freaks.