Time cover shows mom breastfeeding 3-year-old

What do you think about Time magazine's breast-feeding cover?

See the results »

View previous polls »

This image provided by Time magazine shows the cover of the May 21, 2012 issue with a photograph of Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, breastfeeding her 3-year-old son for a story on 'attachment parenting.' Reaction to the cover underscored a cultural rift between traditional childrearing and what some have deemed 'extreme parenting.'

Photo by Associated Press/Time

This image provided by Time magazine shows the cover of the May 21, 2012 issue with a photograph of Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, breastfeeding her 3-year-old son for a story on "attachment parenting." Reaction to the cover underscored a cultural rift between traditional childrearing and what some have deemed "extreme parenting."

— Shocking or no big deal? A woman breastfeeding her 3-year-old son is the cover photo of this week's Time magazine for a story on "attachment parenting," and reactions ranged from applause to cringing to shrugs.

The photo showed Jamie Lynne Grumet, 26, a stay-at-home mom in Los Angeles who says her mother breastfed her until she was 6 years old. She told the magazine in an interview that she's given up reasoning with strangers who see her son nursing and threaten "to call social services on me or that it's child molestation."

"People have to realize this is biologically normal," she said, adding, "The more people see it, the more it'll become normal in our culture. That's what I'm hoping. I want people to see it."

Some questioned why the magazine used the photo of Grumet, a slim blonde pretty enough to be a model, to illustrate a story about a style of childrearing that's been around for a generation. The issue includes a profile of the attachment parenting guru, Dr. Bill Sears, who wrote one of the movement's bibles, "The Baby Book," 20 years ago.

Mika Brzezisnki, co-host of MSNBC's weekday morning program "Morning Joe," suggested on the air that the cover was needlessly sensational: "I'll tell you why it bothers me — because it's a profile of Bill Sears!"

On Twitter, the cover inspired X-rated jokes along with concerns that the child might be teased when he's older. But on many message boards, there was debate about whether it's OK to breastfeed beyond babyhood.

Bobbi Miller, a mother of six who lives in Arkansas, expressed disapproval in a tweet and said in a phone interview, "Even a cow knows when to wean their child." Of the cover, she said: "Why would this even be out there? It's ludicrous. It's almost on the verge of voyeurism."

But Bettina Forbes, co-founder of an organization called Best for Babes that promotes breastfeeding and supports women who want to nurse their children beyond babyhood, said she hopes the cover "will make mainstream America less squeamish" about women breastfeeding children of any age. "It's high time we talk about these things," she said.

Reaction to the cover underscored a cultural rift between traditional childrearing and what some have deemed "extreme parenting." The attachment philosophy encourages mothers to respond to their babies' every cry and form close bonds with near-constant physical contact through "co-sleeping" (letting them sleep in the bed with parents rather than in cribs) and "baby-wearing" (carrying them on slings instead of pushing them in strollers).

Retail chains including Target, Wal-Mart and Safeway did not immediately respond to requests for comment on whether the magazine, which goes on sale Friday, would be displayed in stores.

Time Managing Editor Rick Stengel said he had not heard of any retailers concerned about displaying the cover. But he acknowledged that the image is "provocative. We're posing an interesting question about a subject that couldn't be more important — how we raise our children. People have all kinds of mixed feelings about that."

  • Discuss
  • Print

Comments » 51

volochine writes:

From the Dr. Spock to Dr. Sears, the times they are a changing.

The Time cover is designed to sell magazines and clicks. I'm old. It did not shock me. What shocks me more is our kids lack of exercise and obesity.

angrytxpyr writes:

This is nothing short of "child abuse" with a twist of "child pornography" on the part of the Time Magazine editors. I deeply offended to have opened this article for review only to find the NDN has "cut & pasted" a picture of a woman and child engaged in what appears to a sexual act. I have to wonder if the NDN condones Child pornography or graphic images that strongly suggest it? Why no disclaimer that the picture can be offensive? What has been accomplished here by showing the photo on the web-site? When is enough enough with this local joke of a New outlet. I can chose to not look at this and similar disturbing images on the magazine rack and the cable TV networks have blurred the images but when I opened this article I get hit right smack square in my face an image of an adult woman with a child in what can EASILY be construed as a SEX ACT!!!!!

I'm currently considering a crimminal complaint to the SAO against the NDN for displaying and promoting Child Pornography. I would of course give great consideration to a Civil Lawsuit against the NDN for subjecting me to this very disturbing photograph that they have sent to my computer screen with out any warning or my permission.

NDN editors you are rapidly approaching the bottom of the barrel in journalism!

Beachglow writes:

Journalism just shows less character and class every day. This is pathetic desperation to sell a "rag."

angrytxpyr writes:

I have once again suffered through the image in order to pose a question to the Top Dog at the Naples Daily News. Why have you printed this obviously offensive and more than likely illegal picture on line with the story but have not even mentioned this article in your print version for 05/11/2012?

I am really wonder just exactly what Pam Bondi would think and be compelled to do if she were to be advised of this graphic display of Child abuse and child pornography.

Lets get the answer to that question, yes why don't we....

Ruger writes:

Of course there's no chance this kid will rue the day this photo was published.

Ruger writes:

in response to Beachglow:

Journalism just shows less character and class every day. This is pathetic desperation to sell a "rag."

paleo777 writes:

Mom is doing it only to stay slim... self-serving and selfish.

cozyboy writes:

s----- far left idiotic media.

Here4Now writes:

I'd take some a dat! Giggity

SergeStorm writes:

Obviously the offended here have never been anywhere in the world where this is an accepted/essential practice. Not only "No big deal" but most of what this mom says is true. Unfortunately most Americans have been brainwashed about the advantages of breastfeeding children past the popular 6 months. Many young mothers refuse to breastfeed their babies at all, denying them both the transfirred imunities and the psycological closeness because they feel it is "gross." There are significant medical/health reasons why this is so. Of course, if you have a strong opinion facts may nor be needed

Gifted1 writes:

in response to angrytxpyr:

This is nothing short of "child abuse" with a twist of "child pornography" on the part of the Time Magazine editors. I deeply offended to have opened this article for review only to find the NDN has "cut & pasted" a picture of a woman and child engaged in what appears to a sexual act. I have to wonder if the NDN condones Child pornography or graphic images that strongly suggest it? Why no disclaimer that the picture can be offensive? What has been accomplished here by showing the photo on the web-site? When is enough enough with this local joke of a New outlet. I can chose to not look at this and similar disturbing images on the magazine rack and the cable TV networks have blurred the images but when I opened this article I get hit right smack square in my face an image of an adult woman with a child in what can EASILY be construed as a SEX ACT!!!!!

I'm currently considering a crimminal complaint to the SAO against the NDN for displaying and promoting Child Pornography. I would of course give great consideration to a Civil Lawsuit against the NDN for subjecting me to this very disturbing photograph that they have sent to my computer screen with out any warning or my permission.

NDN editors you are rapidly approaching the bottom of the barrel in journalism!

If this gets under your skin, cannot wait until GOP convention comes and Mitt gets the nod. Thinking you'd be heading to a third world country and calling it a better way of life.
My bet is you will file no complaints or lawsuits.
Oh, and there is only one M in criminal.

Adonis writes:

Does she breast feed adults also?

backwoodsbarbie writes:

I breast fed my son for his first 4 months, a year is ideal, but when Ur kid can walk up and plop Ur boob out I think he's old enough to drink milk out of a cup... I'm kinda offended by this pic mainly bc the lil boy is looking at the camera... I'm all for preaching breast feeding but not when a child is that old....

Gifted1 writes:

in response to backwoodsbarbie:

I breast fed my son for his first 4 months, a year is ideal, but when Ur kid can walk up and plop Ur boob out I think he's old enough to drink milk out of a cup... I'm kinda offended by this pic mainly bc the lil boy is looking at the camera... I'm all for preaching breast feeding but not when a child is that old....

Good Post!
angrytxpyer is proposing a lawsuit and contacting the sheriff.......

Therealist writes:

Some people are weird. Who cares? I have more important things to worry about.

Notthesame writes:

in response to paleo777:

Mom is doing it only to stay slim... self-serving and selfish.

since when does breast feeding keep women slim? If that worked women would all be doing it, and their husbands would be helping.

theoryofdisaster writes:

Got milk?

MrsRobles writes:

I dont see not problem with it but honestly why can't she just pump the best milk and give it in a sippy cup while in public, at home do as you want.

sugaray writes:

Time magazine hasen't been relevant for some time now, this act of desperation is a harbinger of the end.Good riddance to this left wing rag.

Randy50 writes:

I think this is a women that does not want to let go, that her child is growing up. I did see a 9 year old boy breast feeding in an airport a few years ago, very strange, they were an Asian family. I think when the child is eating solid food, feed them healthy food and move on.

angrytxpyr writes:

in response to Gifted1:

Good Post!
angrytxpyer is proposing a lawsuit and contacting the sheriff.......

I am???

A criminal complaint to the Florida Attorney General along with a Civil suit is a little more accurate, of course you never have been one for accuracy.

I could care less if a mom wishes to breast feed her child until college graduation or beyond because it would be none of my business. I don't want to open a web page that is supposed to be a news article and without the benefit of the text see what is a clear example of an adult woman engaged in an act with a child of about 3-4 years old that would be a sex act if it were two adults. Even with the text the fact that the child is 1. standing on a chair. 2. Looking directly at the camera. 3 Both individuals are fully clothed in street cloths except the exposed breast, tells me that the photograph is not art and is not the capturing of an innocent but intimate moment. The picture is obviously posed. Regardless of the relationship between the adult female and the toddler child the picture is at best inappropriate and worse "Child Abuse" or "Child Pornography".

It appears that in hast to irritate or some how antagonize me and or others "gift2no1" has simply ignored the fact that most normal and responsible women consider breast feeding a private and very personal activity as well as being sensitive to the fact that so many other responsible, normal clear thinking adults, male and female may not wish to watch or see what is going on.

The fact that this woman has chosen to expose herself and toddler child to publicity and ridicule is also none of my business nor is it the cause of my statement.

The NDN placed what is clearly a photograph that depicts what most would consider Child Abuse or Pornography on its website. That alone could be a criminal act. The civil portion of that action is that they provided NO WARNING of possibly graphic, inappropriate or offensive content of the supposed news article. The text of the article alone is sufficient to explain the content without the photograph, so there is only one reason for the picture to be there....

I will not be coming back to this article as I find the image to be absolutely revolting and obscene. If you wish to continue to demostrate your profound ignorance "gift2no1" you'll have to do it somewhere else.

Colorado (Inactive) writes:

in response to angrytxpyr:

This is nothing short of "child abuse" with a twist of "child pornography" on the part of the Time Magazine editors. I deeply offended to have opened this article for review only to find the NDN has "cut & pasted" a picture of a woman and child engaged in what appears to a sexual act. I have to wonder if the NDN condones Child pornography or graphic images that strongly suggest it? Why no disclaimer that the picture can be offensive? What has been accomplished here by showing the photo on the web-site? When is enough enough with this local joke of a New outlet. I can chose to not look at this and similar disturbing images on the magazine rack and the cable TV networks have blurred the images but when I opened this article I get hit right smack square in my face an image of an adult woman with a child in what can EASILY be construed as a SEX ACT!!!!!

I'm currently considering a crimminal complaint to the SAO against the NDN for displaying and promoting Child Pornography. I would of course give great consideration to a Civil Lawsuit against the NDN for subjecting me to this very disturbing photograph that they have sent to my computer screen with out any warning or my permission.

NDN editors you are rapidly approaching the bottom of the barrel in journalism!

I think it is you who is sick. How much porn do you watch??? I'm sure guns and violence is just fine with you, but let a little flesh get exposed and your fundamentalist upbringing takes over. You are sick and you are the type that makes this country backwards and out of touch with reality. You really need to find a totalitarian country where you can impose your warped view of humanity on the inhabitants. Sick and Pitiful.

Gifted1 writes:

in response to angrytxpyr:

I am???

A criminal complaint to the Florida Attorney General along with a Civil suit is a little more accurate, of course you never have been one for accuracy.

I could care less if a mom wishes to breast feed her child until college graduation or beyond because it would be none of my business. I don't want to open a web page that is supposed to be a news article and without the benefit of the text see what is a clear example of an adult woman engaged in an act with a child of about 3-4 years old that would be a sex act if it were two adults. Even with the text the fact that the child is 1. standing on a chair. 2. Looking directly at the camera. 3 Both individuals are fully clothed in street cloths except the exposed breast, tells me that the photograph is not art and is not the capturing of an innocent but intimate moment. The picture is obviously posed. Regardless of the relationship between the adult female and the toddler child the picture is at best inappropriate and worse "Child Abuse" or "Child Pornography".

It appears that in hast to irritate or some how antagonize me and or others "gift2no1" has simply ignored the fact that most normal and responsible women consider breast feeding a private and very personal activity as well as being sensitive to the fact that so many other responsible, normal clear thinking adults, male and female may not wish to watch or see what is going on.

The fact that this woman has chosen to expose herself and toddler child to publicity and ridicule is also none of my business nor is it the cause of my statement.

The NDN placed what is clearly a photograph that depicts what most would consider Child Abuse or Pornography on its website. That alone could be a criminal act. The civil portion of that action is that they provided NO WARNING of possibly graphic, inappropriate or offensive content of the supposed news article. The text of the article alone is sufficient to explain the content without the photograph, so there is only one reason for the picture to be there....

I will not be coming back to this article as I find the image to be absolutely revolting and obscene. If you wish to continue to demostrate your profound ignorance "gift2no1" you'll have to do it somewhere else.

What has she exposed?
Again. you will be taking NO ACTION, as I suggested earlier. Because your aware of how foolish it would be. It is okay to have a foolish stance every now and again.
Oh, and again,hast is spelled...haste

Gifted1 writes:

in response to I_Voted_For_Obama:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

You and Time magazine now are on equal footing. Putting a statement out there like that for shock value just leveled your playing field with them.

Good going!

Gifted1 writes:

The woman = Our Government

The little child = Every large American corporation

How sad that a once well respected country has descended to this level. Basically putting themselves on the same level as a Ponzi scheme

HarryNuts writes:

Who cares. We're just giving this crap the attention they want.
Yawn

Therealist writes:

angrytxpyr: Find a hobby.

jvic47 writes:

in response to HarryNuts:

Who cares. We're just giving this crap the attention they want.
Yawn

Agree

anotherPOV writes:

angrytxpyr, its apparent that your mother did "something" to you. I would recommend a psychiatrist.

anotherPOV writes:

in response to SNOWBIRD27:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

The woman or the subject matter?

Gifted1 writes:

in response to I_Voted_For_Obama:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

No,
still Gifted1

ballinemt writes:

My wife and I are about to have our first child and she plans on breast feeding. We live in GA and according to state law, she is allowed to feed in public and she can expose her bare breast while doing so. My question is why do people have issues with this, if state statues permit this behavior? I would understand an argument if the law was behind them, however the only ground they have to stand on is their own opinion.

mangy_coon writes:

in response to ballinemt:

My wife and I are about to have our first child and she plans on breast feeding. We live in GA and according to state law, she is allowed to feed in public and she can expose her bare breast while doing so. My question is why do people have issues with this, if state statues permit this behavior? I would understand an argument if the law was behind them, however the only ground they have to stand on is their own opinion.

I have no issue with your wife and her bare exposed breast feeding in public. I am perfectly okay with watching it in public.
That won't be an issue for you, will it?

ballinemt writes:

in response to mangy_coon:

I have no issue with your wife and her bare exposed breast feeding in public. I am perfectly okay with watching it in public.
That won't be an issue for you, will it?

I have no problem with it at all. However, if people treat it like a peep show, hopefully they can run faster than 800 ft/sec

cruiser420 writes:

this is disturbing and disgusting. WOW

airboatboy writes:

in response to angrytxpyr:

This is nothing short of "child abuse" with a twist of "child pornography" on the part of the Time Magazine editors. I deeply offended to have opened this article for review only to find the NDN has "cut & pasted" a picture of a woman and child engaged in what appears to a sexual act. I have to wonder if the NDN condones Child pornography or graphic images that strongly suggest it? Why no disclaimer that the picture can be offensive? What has been accomplished here by showing the photo on the web-site? When is enough enough with this local joke of a New outlet. I can chose to not look at this and similar disturbing images on the magazine rack and the cable TV networks have blurred the images but when I opened this article I get hit right smack square in my face an image of an adult woman with a child in what can EASILY be construed as a SEX ACT!!!!!

I'm currently considering a crimminal complaint to the SAO against the NDN for displaying and promoting Child Pornography. I would of course give great consideration to a Civil Lawsuit against the NDN for subjecting me to this very disturbing photograph that they have sent to my computer screen with out any warning or my permission.

NDN editors you are rapidly approaching the bottom of the barrel in journalism!

I think you are the sick one. Seek help.

cnc1128 writes:

A crazy California woman claimed on the Phil Hendri radio talk show that she breast fed her son until he was 11 years old, she said it was done in order for them to attain "Attachment" .
Sick, sick, sick.

Ilovedisney writes:

Ignorance.
In the State of Florida Breastfeeding Mothers are Protected. The law was made in 1993.
.
House bill no. HB 231 Fl. ALS 4; 1993 Fla. Laws ch. 4; 1993 Fla. HB 231 Fla. Stat. § 383.015, § 800.02 - 800.04, § 847.001 (later: § 827.071)

Mothers in the state of Florida can Breastfeed Anywhere, Anytime!
Breast are for nursing. The human mind made them sexual. We are mammals.

Get with the times! Breastfeeding is a gift that a mother gives a child for a life time. Time magazine really could have written and designed this article to accurately describe the real life of a mother of a breastfeeding child.
Sports Illustrated swimsuit cover is worse!
So complain all you want, it will get you no where.

legal_right writes:

If your child has a full set of teeth, it might be time to get them off the teat....just saying. Also, children should sleep on their own. This is usually an issue of the mother's mental state than the child being "afraid".

SandnSurf writes:

The attachment philosophy encourages mothers to respond to their babies' every cry and form close bonds with near-constant physical contact through "co-sleeping" (letting them sleep in the bed with parents rather than in cribs) and "baby-wearing" (carrying them on slings instead of pushing them in strollers).

This is the part of the story that I dont agree with. If everyone raised their sons like this there would be a bunch of momma boys that require a mother instead of a wife.

tampacoco writes:

I believe in Breast feeding , My he is to old and she is doing it for her own sick needs. This kid should boob broke and potty trained.My kids were off that by the time their teething started. The people who believe in this crap are nuts.

tampacoco writes:

in response to backwoodsbarbie:

I breast fed my son for his first 4 months, a year is ideal, but when Ur kid can walk up and plop Ur boob out I think he's old enough to drink milk out of a cup... I'm kinda offended by this pic mainly bc the lil boy is looking at the camera... I'm all for preaching breast feeding but not when a child is that old....

I totally agree with you .

voltihs writes:

TELL HER I CAN DO IT WITHOUT THE CHAIR.

NINE MONTHS GETTING OUT, A LIFETIME TRYING TO GET BACK IN.

brighteyes writes:

It's certainly not child molestation if this mother breast feeds her three year old son; however, let's look at the norm in our society and please don't do this to your son. All animals want to continue to feed upon their mother and it is up to the mother to wean her young. I really believe this woman needs to wean her son based upon animal instincts, it is far and above time to wean a human at three years of age.

stonnerjohnnyII writes:

I wish I was 3!

volochine writes:

Too funny! If it doesn't fit the republican lifestyle, it must be curtailed, overhauled, legislated, in the name of protection of their 1954 ideals.

Register to vote, even if the State of Florida doesn't want some people to vote. Get educated.

unfatcat writes:

The image that Time Magazine is picturing of the U.S. to the world is embarrassing. Wasn't it Time Magazine that, last year, recognized Occupy Wall Street as one of the 10 most important stories of the year; when the year prior, the Tea Party literally changed the composition of the entire Congress in one single election cycle, but didn't make the top ten events list??

The news that Time should be reporting is about the fact that the U.N. wants the U.S. to give Mount Rushmore back to the Indians. Mount Rushmore--featuring the faces of our apparently only great leaders carved out in rock.

Obama seems to treat the U.N. like it already owns us, like it is his boss, the military's boss, and the People's boss as he seeks permission from and executes based on their desires.

What ticks me off is that these tricks of avoidance of Congress approval are so unnecessary and wrong. Americans are good people. If we owe the Indians, then we should talk about it; but just like Muslim Brotherhood should not be near our honorable Twin Towers; destroying the honor and history of U.S. presidents (on purpose) is a crime to the people of the U.S.

So, what powers does the U.N. actually have over the United States and why?

American citizens (not including govt.) have not sold their souls to the Devil; but the Devil is surely trying to steal them anyway. In fact, the collective Devil just seems to walk in and take what it wants.

blueblueblue writes:

in response to I_Voted_For_Obama:

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

You're a pig, but you already know that.

starvingartist writes:

The son is named Oedipus and is he ever in for a shock when the other school boys bring this picture to school.

np writes:

Poor Kid he is set for life on a Nipple Focus. Its all Moma's fault for rewarding this act as being Time's coverpick. I believe a skewed value system is in the works.

Want to participate in the conversation? Become a subscriber today. Subscribers can read and comment on any story, anytime. Non-subscribers will only be able to view comments on select stories.

Features