Jump to content

Recommended Posts

When I saw "extreme breastfeeding" in the title, I was slightly disappointed to learn that it wasn't b/fing underwater or up a mountainside! Tee Hee. Reality was somewhat less exciting...


BBC article--


Extreme breastfeeding:


Should children be nursed for years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18032390




The latest cover of Time magazine has caused outrage. Under the headline "Are you mom enough?", a young woman is pictured having her left breast suckled by a boy who appears way beyond usual breastfeeding age.


The woman, it turns out, is Jamie Lynne Grumet, a 26-year old mother from Los Angeles, and the boy is her son Aram, aged almost four.


It's easy to squirm at the cover {of Time}, says Sheila Eldred at Discovery News, but says this is more about American "squeamishness" than anything else. And a related article in Time shows that the World Health Organization recommends breast-feeding until at least age two, and the average age of weaning worldwide is around four, she points out.



Hmm, funny but, I think I would have preferred an article on b/fing underwater or up a mountainside.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/23447-extreme-breastfeeding/
Share on other sites

Given two straws and half a chance, I'm sure Little Saff would snorkle for a b/feed in the bath! I like the funny side of b/fing. We've had so many hilarious moments. When Little Saff bumped her head on the table, she told us it was a beeboo (that's her word for booby or b/fing) emergency. When I picked her up, she started making noises like beeeeebooooo-beeeeeboooo-beeeeeboooo (you have to imagine that sounding like the old-style emergency siren). Needless to say we all fell about laughing. :)

I didn't think it was sexualising, but agree it was intended to shock.


but there was a much nicer photo with a woman bf 2 children which i thought was less in your face.


I dont know why they couldn't use a pic showing the mother bf her child how she would actually feed him, eg lying down or him on her lap or however they do it.


I was quite surprised reading some comments on articles (I read a few sites so not sure which ones) at people being 'shocked' or 'disgusted' at children being bf past 1 or 2. I get why someone might choose not to but I don't get the attitude towards families that keep going.

That picture made me so cross for an entirely different reason. Whatever the arguments for and against breastfeeding in public / private / past a certain age are etc, one very definite fact is that that boy is going to have that article held up against him in school for a very long time and is never going to live it down. He's going to be bullied and laughed at and I can't believe that any sane mother would do that to her child. Why are some mothers so stupid and selfish to want to make a political point at the expense of their child? In fact, how dare Time do that to a child, surely that's exploitation in a way, selling more magazines at the expense of a 4 year old who can't consent to an article that's going t make his life a misery.

Nah, he'll probably go to a school where all the kids were breastfed to 4+ yrs. He'll be the uber-cool kid who got his pic on Time. ;-)


Not saying I think much of the pic obviously, but it's different strokes for different folks.


Now, anyone see a waterfall round South London? No. Hmmm, guess we'll have to settle for b/fing while watching nature documentaries. That's about as extreme as I'm getting... today. xx

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • In what way? Maybe it just felt more intelligent and considered coming directly after Question Time, which was a barely watchable bun fight.
    • Yes, all this. Totally Sephiroth. The electorate wants to see transformation overnight. That's not possible. But what is possible is leading with the right comms strategy, which isn't cutting through. As I've said before, messaging matters more now than policy, that's the only way to bring the electorate with you. And I worry that that's how Reform's going to get into power.  And the media LOVES Reform. 
    • “There was an excellent discussion on Newscast last night between the BBC Political Editor, the director of the IFS and the director of More In Common - all highly intelligent people with no party political agenda ” I would call this “generous”   Labour should never have made that tax promise because, as with - duh - Brexit, it’s pretending the real world doesn’t exist now. I blame Labour in no small part for this delusion. But the electorate need to cop on as well.  They think they can have everything they want without responsibilities, costs or attachments. The media encourage this  Labour do need to raise taxes. The country needs it.  Now, exactly how it’s done remains to be seen. But if people are just going to go around going “la la laffer curve. Liars! String em up! Vote someone else” then they just aren’t serious people reckoning with the problem yes Labour are more than a year into their term, but after 14 years of what the Tories  did? Whoever takes over, has a major problem 
    • Messaging, messaging, messaging. That's all it boils down to. There are only so many fiscal policies out there, and they're there for the taking, no matter which party you're in. I hate to say it, but Farage gets it right every time. Even when Reform reneges on fiscal policy, it does it with enough confidence and candidness that no one is wringing their hands. Instead, they're quietly admired for their pragmatism. Strangely, it's exactly the same as Labour has done, with its manifesto reverse on income tax, but it's going to bomb.  Blaming the Tories / Brexit / Covid / Putin ... none of it washes with the public anymore  - it wants to be sold a vision of the future, not reminded of the disasters of the past. Labour put itself on the back foot with its 'the tories fucked it all up' stance right at the beginning of its tenure.  All Lammy had to do (as with Reeves and Raynor etc) was say 'mea culpa. We've made a mistake, we'll fix it. Sorry guys, we're on it'. But instead it's 'nothing to see here / it's someone else's fault / I was buying a suit / hadn't been briefed yet'.  And, of course, the press smells blood, which never helps.  Oh! And Reeve's speech on Wednesday was so drab and predictable that even the journalists at the press conference couldn't really be arsed to come up with any challenging questions. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...