[news.yahoo.com]

That boy looks older than three to me!

I nursed my three until they wanted to stop. The oldest kept it up until she turned four, including tandem nursing with her baby sister. The other two were three when they had enough. There's no love like the love you and your baby feel when you're nursing.

Let me guess -

Breastfeeding a three year old is disgusting, but killing an unborn baby is fine.....

And breastfeeding a three year old is horrific, but sodomy amongst two men is fine....

Bizarro World.

I don't have a problem with breastfeeding kids above two but the cover seems a bit...exploitative. It's a private thing and they've plastered it on every newsstand in America, making it akin to a dirty joke.

What was the real purpose of this photo and how will it affect this boy in the future?

It is fine for the mother (an adult) to give permission to be photographed with her breasts exposed, but I don't think it is fair to the child to publish his face. He is not old enough to make that choice and he may or may not want to have had this natural, but personal, photo published when he is older.

I saw a tv video on America's Funniest Home Videos of a boy sitting on the toilet - also a natural activity, but he was too young to give permission to be on tv in that situation in my opinion.

For adults to make a child a public figure for their reasons (such as to provocatively promote a cause, to make a child the butt of a joke in a video to try to make money from it, or whatever adult purpose) without regard or respect for the child's rights to control their pubic image seems wrong to me. How will such widely published photos, televised videos, etc. affect their lives as older children, teenagers or even when adults?

I'm all for breast feeding and all against exploiting young people who have to rely on adults to make wise decisions for their (the young person's) best interest, not their (the adult's) personal cause, interest, or gain.


My favorite raw vegan



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/11/2012 04:00AM by Trive.

Agree with Trive, but the papaer rags must really push the edge of what is provocative to maintain market share, etc. The article--not accessible to those that don't subscribe--seems to promote Dr. Sears's views on attachment parenting, which I think most of us here agree with. Thus, if the image gets more eyeballs into the articles themselves, all for the better!

i think it would have been better if the childs back of the head be shown instead of the whole face for the reasons Trive mentioned above

otherwise i have no problem with the concept of breastfeeding until mother and child feel they are ready to end it ... indiginous cultures have done it this way

i also dont have any problem with gay people or abortion

...Jodi, the banana eating buddhist

Here is an interview with the mother:


[video.today.msnbc.msn.com]

Thanks for posting that, nanners. I am observing [unscientifically] that the children I meet that were not, let us say, intimately parented, are more likely to be poorly socialized and psychologically unsteady than children whose parents were very hands-on in infancy through early toddlerhood. To me this is such a duh thing: primate offspring let you know when they don't need you much anymore by spending time away from you when together. Autonomy--how does it work?

I wanted to link the original article with the video embedded in it. The title implied that the kid proved that attachment parenting doesn't produce perfect kids!

Having seen the video, I will admit that the child did seem to get upset whenever his mother talked. It was almost as if he was saying that he's the king and how DARE anyone else get asked questions and carry on conversations that don't revolve around HIM! But he's still very young and I do know there is an egocentric phase with all children.

Also, his dad was in front of them, off camera, and that's a distraction in and of itself.

I concur with Trive about showing the boy face, God, what were they thinking. In the olden days, it was common pracise to continue breast feeding even up to 5yrs, according to the Bible.

I don't believe that the media should've exploited the practise as they have done here though. There's a lot to be said for delayed wheening, such as the necessary protective nutrients that prevent disease etc. Another species milk, or that 'formula' milk just doesn't fit the bill, so to speak. Babies would be much healthier if they weren't wheened so early, IMO.

Cheers, jalan x

Here's the SNL skit about it --

[www.nbc.com]

I breastfed my son until he was ready to stop, age 3, but was prepared to go until his deciduous teeth came in (adult teeth). We are very close and he is graduating from University this week at 22. He is an independent young man and honors student.

Also I agree to put this boys face on the cover is not ok.

tamukha

why is "Attachment Parenting" always a good thing?

i thought that it was for those who could actually afford to do it

like if one person is at work and earns enough to be the sole income earner

then maybe if the other person wants to do that

then, they might

but otherwise, wouldn't that imply that

those who are single parents
or those whom both parents work

then the kid will turn out bad?

that doesn't make sense to me at all

seems like there are kids in all ranges of parenting

some who have had no parenting ( like they were orphans shuffled around)

to having attachment parenting ( parent was there for the kid 24/7)

and both could cause resilience or cognitive disorders

like, if someone was an orphan
they could end up being more independent in thinking, resilient, resourceful, and adaptable

though of course there are legions that would disagree

and the kid who was constantly paid attention to could end up being
less independent, more dependent, not very resourceful, less adaptable, less independently resilient to the vagrancies that life throws out etc.

i guess my point is that it could definitely swing both ways
depending on attitude and such

but you seem to feel that attachment parenting is a good thing always

what is your definition of attachment parenting

and how do you see it as being very positive?

it seems like an obvious question with an obvious answer but its not that obvious to me and i'm not sure why it isn't

Holy crackers, that kid is enormous! Either that or his mom is a tiny woman. If he's 3, that mag picked a big looking kid just to make it more sensational. And I agree, WTF are they doing showing his face like that? I don't post pics of the kids online anywhere because they deserve a little privacy and sacrificing that for my own entertainment seems like not great parenting to me. I know I'd be furious if my parents had posted pictures of me in public as I was growing up, pictures I could never get back. Can you imagine if anyone with a computer could just look you up and see all your private moments? It's inconceivable to us and yet parents are doing that to their kids almost constantly. Blogs and facebook etc. It's a strange culture we're creating these days.
I BF the little man until he was 3.5 and he would have gone on but my b00bs got tired so I stopped it. The girl was 2.5 and she would have gone on too but come on now, I had nursed for a combined time of 6 years at that point, I was finished.
Both of them slept with me, the girl still does and she's nearly 5, the boy gets into our bed on occasion too (like this morning 'cause it was chilly, lol). While I've worked, gone to school, stayed home, etc, I practice a version of attachment parenting and I am in no way rich or wealthy. I think it's important for the needs of children to be met and for them to grow up feeling strong and confident about that. TV and babysitters and starting off their lives in cribs and car seats and strollers don't do that in my opinion.

LaV, it seems to me that nowadays when something is touted as a great idea, those who don't do it feel that they are being dissed. For instance, we talk a lot about SAD and yet I debate meat-eaters who claim that there are vegetarians and vegans who are not that healthy. True? I will grant that there are most likely omnivores out there who eat better than SOME vegans (for instance, vegans who eat lots of junk "health food" versus light meat-eaters who consume whole foods).

When it comes to raising children, perhaps I am not an expert since I have no kids. But it makes sense to me that if we follow the natural development of a child, we will give that child the best upbringing. Children tend to cling to parents until around age five. It works out perfectly for a parent (could be the father) to be with them until they are more comfortable breaking away.

I see children in my area raised by nannies and they do not look happy. These are middle/uppermiddle/high-income families but money is not enough! I have no doubt whatsoever that those kids would rather have a parent with them all day than an X-box or whatever is the latest toy. I saw a little boy whimpering "Mommy" over and over again in his fashionable stroller at the cafe the other day and it broke my heart. I feel it's WRONG because it's obvious that if the parents can afford a nanny, they could afford to downsize and take care of the child themselves. Yes, there are special circumstances and I know the difference and I am calling out those people who treat raising children as yet another item on their bucket list.

la_veronique,

Agree with banana who; basically, children let you know by their increasing autonomy when they are ready to not be shadowed by you, and parenting--ideally--ought to follow this natural pattern of behavior.

Did anyone happen to catch the latest celeb proponent of Attachment Parenting?



[abcnews.go.com]

I read this online. Refers to some experiment though not sure which country. Here it is:


<<Twenty newborn infants were housed in a special facility. They had caregivers who would go in to feed them, bathe them and change their diapers, but they would do nothing else. The caregivers had been instructed not to look at or touch the babies more than was necessary, and they never spoke to them. All their physical needs were attended to scrupulously, however. The environment was kept sterile; the babies were never ill.

The experiment was halted after four months. At least half of the babies had died at that point, at least two more died even after being rescued and brought into a more normal environment. There was no physiological cause for the babies' deaths; they were all physically very healthy. Before each baby died, there was a period where they would stop verbalizing and trying to engage their caregivers, and just stop moving, never cry or change expression. Death would follow shortly. The babies who had "given up" before being rescued died in the same manner, even though they had been removed from the experimental conditions.

The conclusion was that nurturing is actually a very vital need in humans.>>

Another article in the same forum said that babies that are not held end up in mental institutions far into their adulthood. Is that really true? Well, what about kids who were raised in orphanages since very very young. Its kind of creepy... like some form of predestination. Equation: If you are not held when born, you will be profoundly screwed up. Kind of sad. I guess that is where the internal compass comes in.

la_veronique,

We in the early childhood ed biz call this Romanian Orphan Syndrome: you know, those reports in the late Soviet era of how children in these poorly run understaffed totalitarin orphanges experienced high mortality rates, clinical retardation, psychosis and pathological behaviors due to lack of physical stimuli.

If you took a psych class in college in the last forty years, you likely had to suffer through at least one viewing of footage from Harry Harlow's baby Rhesus monkey studies from the late fifties and early sixties. These clearly demonstrated that lack of physical nurturing results in death, or at best pathology, in the majority of primate young. I had to endure four viewings from high school to the earning of my Bachelors, and I am pretty decided on this subject!

Here's a related situation --

Dear Prudence

A Touch Too Long
My mom let me play with her breasts for years after I stopped breast-feeding, and now she’s doing it with my sister. How do I stop it?


[www.slate.com]

This really bothers me that Prudence answered with this --

"As painful as it is to contemplate turning your mother in to the authorities, for the sake of your sister, that’s what’s you should do."

So the kid is going to tell 'the authorities' and The Government is going to come in and take the kids away from the mother, when the mother's intention was totally innocent.

Like - instead of saying "Ok, no more tits and that's it!" you want to be more gentle, so you tell your child "Maybe we'll just touch Mommy's titties from now on because the milk is all gone," and you figure the child will taper off on their own to nothing.

And sorry, but maybe only someone who has been a mother and breastfed her children can relate to this.

Baby girl is nearly 5, the other day I asked her why she was so well behaved with Gramma in a particular situation but gave mommy such a hard time. Her reply? Because I don't give her any more milk. She hasn't nursed for 2 and a half years but she knows what comfort is wanted when she wants it. So I let her know she can still snuggle the medicine chest, even though it's empty now. I'd like to see someone trying to tell me that's wrong.

Prudence is a prude and that young man is transferring his discomfort over his own burgeoning sexuality onto an innocent child. He probably became uncomfortable with the memory of this right around the same time that he made the mental connect that his parents actually had to have had sex to make him and his siblings. Children go through a natural phase of this, but it's THEIR issue. A 9 year old is young enough that breasts, hugs, snuggles, still mean comfort, there is nothing sexual about it beyond people's natural inherent sexuality. B00bs are not primarily a sexual organ, that is their secondary and much less important function. Breasts are about nurturing and a 9 year old may still very well need and enjoy nurturing.

You know what speaks to me the loudest with this article? The fact that this young man is so uncomfortable with his own honesty and family communication that he can't air this to the actual family members involved. Now THAT'S disfunction.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/08/2012 05:36PM by coco.

The boy's problem, as I see it, is that he is conflating his mother's nurturing breasts with the sexualized breasts of his female peers and women not his mother. He should be able to get a handle on this. Perhaps also, and I am stretching here, he may not feel as tantalized by breasts sexually as our culture/his male peers signal him he must, and he needs to find a scapegoat. Like what "inappropriate impulses" does he worry his sister will develop?

Pft, she might "inappropriately" develop the view of herself and her parts as her own instead of exclusively sexual objects that she "should" display for the pleasure of others, that's what she might do.

That's what I was thinking, coconuts