Time Mag’s Unholy Portrait of Mother and Child


I caught Jamie Lynne Grumet’s interview on CNN. She’s the 26-year-old Los Angeles mother who thought there nothing shameful about being pictured on the cover of Time magazine with her 3-year-old boy sucking her breast.

“Our family is a little different than the average family,” she laughed.

But it was no laughing matter.

Time’s ungodly cover is kiddie porn dressed up as journalism. It will probably be a best-seller among demonically-influenced sickos out there who get off on the sexualization of children.

Yet Time magazine defends its cover, which it timed to coincide with Mother’s Day – the one Sunday each year when churches are filled not just by the faithful, heeding the Biblical commandment to “honor thy mother, but also by those who do not otherwise attend church.

“Part of our job,” said Rick Stengel, Time’s unapologetic editor-in-chief, “is to provoke discussion and provoke thought.” But surely the magazine could have done so without exploiting all-too-willing Grumet and her little boy.

The L.A. mom offered a similar defense on CNN. “We weren’t doing it for publicity,” she insisted. “We were doing it to educate people.”

But of course.

She and her husband thought they would introduce the uninformed to so-called “attachment parenting.” It is the highly-questionable way of bringing up baby advocated by Dr. Bill Sears and wife Mary in their 1992 manual, “The Baby Book.”  

It encourages moms like Grumet to breast-feed their offspring for not just the first six months of their lives, as the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends, but well into toddlerhood.

It also encourages “co-sleeping,” in which a mom like Grumet shares a bed for any number of years with her child (and her husband, if he’s foolish enough to go along).

Ironically, Grumet herself is living proof that attachment parenting is damaging to children like her nearly four-year-old breast-feeding boy.

She told CNN that her own mom breast-fed her until she was fully six years old. That  explains how Time’s cover mom turned out so twisted.

This entry was published on May 13, 2012 at 5:10 PM. It’s filed under Family, Media and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post.

17 thoughts on “Time Mag’s Unholy Portrait of Mother and Child

  1. If you can no longer cradle a 4-year-old in your arms to breastfeed them, then that means they should not be breastfed at that age. Biological design. Simple as that.

  2. Far be it for me to contradict CNN, but this directly from the AAP website (emphasis mine):

    How long should I breastfeed my baby?

    The AAP recommends that babies be *EXCLUSIVELY* breastfed for about the first 6 months of life. This means your baby needs no additional foods (except Vitamin D) or fluids unless medically indicated. *BABIES SHOULD CONTINUE TO BREASTFEED FOR A YEAR AND FOR AS LONG AS IS MUTUALLY DESIRED* by the mother and baby. Breastfeeding should be supported by your physician for as long as it is the right choice for you and your baby.

    • You quote AAP: “Breastfeeding should be support by your physician for as long as it is the right choice for you and your baby.” I don’t think most of us would consider a nearly four-year-old boy a baby.

      • In another venue, I’ve asked a person representing your website to contact the AAP directly. I invite you to do the same, and to post the clarification you receive. I’ll confess, my wife has worked closely with the AAP in setting P&P for lactation education programs in several major hospitals, so I have no doubts as to the answer you will receive from the AAP. To be honest, the phone has been buzzing non-stop with pediatricians and lactation consultants all week after the time cover. This has been discussed ad nauseum in this house. But please, contact them, and post your clarification.

      • Jay, stop beating around the bush. Is it or is it not okay for a mother to breastfeed a nearly four-year-old child? And do you or do you not find it offensive for that mother to have a picture of her breastfeading her nearly four-year-old on the cover of a national magazine?

  3. Look, there are all sorts of health releated benifits to breast feeding the longer the better. We know darn good and well our children are being fed Crap in Baby Formula. What we might consider extended breast feeding may in fact be benificial. In as much as their is a billion dollar Formula industry do not expect they will lose sales without a fight.. regardless of the consequence to children.

    While I do not believe your comments were designed to help the Formula Industry.. they do no service to Christian Children who need all the breaks they can get including the best nutrition possible.

    Do I think the photo did a disservice to the subject? that almost goes without saying Yes… Was it sexual..thought provoking… not to me.. just stupid.

    As far as sleeping in their parents bed.. Humans are Mammals.. they need the touch and warmth of one another.. we have known that to be true for a very long time..

    I would like to see you take the time to commision a study of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome..a broad enough study to include infants and toddlers that sleep with their parents and those that do not..

    Then do a comparison I suspect the results will astound everyone.. Babies just forget to breath, also for those of us who live in the outdoors are well aware newborns be they birds or any other creature simply pass away not just thru a lack of warmth and food if they are separated from their mothers but it is a unique kindness preventing them from suffering..That may well be preprogramed to some extent in most mamalian infants who are unable to fend for themselves.

    I think very likely the results will show the number of SIDS death way down amoung the group who keeps their children with them.

    These are legitimate question deserving a scientific examination and peer reviewed evaluation of the results..

    Just slamming some moron Editor does not serve children Christian or Otherwise.

  4. Sorry, exclusively breastfed for 6 months, and should continue for at least one year.

  5. “Time’s ungodly cover is kiddie porn dressed up as journalism. It will probably be a best-seller among demonically-influenced sickos out there who get off on the sexualization of children.” Really? Sounds like you’re the one all twisted up, not her. If you look at a nursing child and mother and see porn, what does that say about you? Don’t bother answering.

    • I see a picture on the cover of a national magazine of a nearly four-year-old boy sucking the breast of a woman (his mother)as kiddie porn. And so do many of Time’s readers, Christians and non-believers alike.

  6. You completely misrepresented the AAP’s stance on breastfeeding. The AAP recommends that babies be EXCLUSIVELY breastfed for one year, and that breastfeeding should continue for at LEAST one full year, and should continue as long as mutually desired.

    • That’s not what CNN reported. According to its news story, “The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends babies be breast-fed exclusively for the first six months of their lives.”

  7. Somebody is sick, but it is not this mother (hint-hint). Please, for god’s sake get help before your hate harms you or someone else! 😦

    • Is it hateful to say that a right-thinking mother should not breastfeed her nearly four-year-old son? And that, if she does, she shouldn’t have the photo published on the cover of Time magazine?

    • These people are expressing their opinion.. Not hate.. They are concerned for moral principles as well.. trying to “Hold the Line” for that they deserve your and my gratitude..

      The truths surrounding this issue are not completely known to us yet. If you want them to seek a science based Biblically acceptable solution… Then do not call them “Haters” for they are not.

      The idiot editor who published the pictures was trying to be shocking to sell magazines.. He in truth could give a rats backside with regards to the truth of the issue.. and it is an important one..

      Why would you cede ground to the Formula industry by antagonizing people who if treated with respect and shown credible science exists to support a position.. may well come to support the concepts and ideas being proffered with regards to breast feeding? There are no Scripturally based prohibitions on extended Breast Feeding or an infant, toddler sleeping alongside their parents..

      To you Christians reading this.. be suspicious of those who creating their own moral notions of right and wrong from whole cloth condemn you.

      “Be wise like Serpents and Gentle like Doves” Right?

      What if it was the case that strong evidence is beginning to show that extended breast feeding is of significant health benifit to children. What if the Magazines Author was charged by the Formula industry to conduct a Counter Intelligence Program.. designed to harden the lines and prevent erosion of the Formula Market.? So he was a Jerk on purpose.. taking a legitimate issue exposing the science but presenting it in a manner which resulted in it being sensationalized rather that scrutinized for it’s validity.. Get it..

      “For we Wrestle not against flesh and blood but against Powers and Principalities.. Wickedness in High Places.” (Think I have it right)

    • John Q. Public on said:

      Liberals and atheists always want to play the hate card. It’s just like the race card. There isn’t any genuine argument being expressed—they don’t have one. There’s just the hope that the charge itself will silence opposition.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: