Okay What The Fuck

Forget everything I’ve ever written ever, and by the way forget anything else that is happening anywhere. If the people at TIME Magazine responsible for this cover did not actually Photoshop the kid into this shot then every single person involved should be arrested for child sexual abuse.

Yes I realize there’s nothing wrong with breast feeding and women’s boobs. But they’ve got a picture of a kid who looks old enough to be riding a bicycle without training wheels sucking on a woman’s nipple on the cover of their latest issue. I find that, to put it mildly, wrong. No point that TIME wanted to make about the pros and cons of attachment parenting warranted putting an actual kid sucking an actual woman’s actual breast on the cover of their magazine. I don’t care if it’s the real kid and his mom. I don’t usually advocate calling in Child Services but for fuck’s sakes get this kid away from his creepy, exploitative mother.

Arrest them. Arrest them all. Make them do the perp walk through downtown New York City. And then throw them in jail, raze the TIME building to the ground, and sow the vacant lot with salt.


6 thoughts on “Okay What The Fuck

  1. Okay, so I actually read the article at Last Psychiatrist (or tried to–the photo seems to have damaged Alone’s brain), and apparently the scene was actually staged that way so the photographer and the staff and the owners of TIME still need to all be arrested and buried under concrete or something, and the kid needs to have his mother pried off him and given some normal people to live with.

    By the way, one more thing: the whole deal about breast feeding being the only way to raise an optimally happy child instead of a bitter, unloved, confused, dysfunctional mess: I’m adopted, from birth, so I have never known the joy of a “steady milk supply” from a parental unit’s chest parts. And yet, I turned out just fine. You can ask my friends that I have chained up in the basement how fine I am. Go ahead, ask them. (No seriously, this is bullshit. Children don’t have to develop while physically attached to a parent. We aren’t apples.)

  2. Oh what a shock. As readership decines toward 0, a liberal magazine has to try and outrage the readers they don’t have.

    Interestingly to me, at least, an aunt of mine was at least a local activist in the 70s when breast feeding was being run out of town on a rail to save it. I’ll agree that the ‘its the only way’ is also crap. I suppose every generation the conventional wisdom has to crush someone into irrelevance to show its muscle.

  3. Reblogged this on Clarissa's Blog and commented:
    I can’t do my link Encyclopedia while I travel but do check out this post that I agree with completely. The journalists should not be allowed to engage in child abuse to make a catchy title. Is anybody going to look out for the rights of children already?

  4. All I can say is that I’m glad the art director was tied up with the Time cover – I’d hate to think of what he (or she) would have come up with for Newsweek‘s beatification of Bam.

  5. That qualifies as effective, productive, positive parenting. Really.

    I always thought a parent’s purpose was to raise the child to go away from them, not spend their lives attached at the hip (or worse, in this case). My mother did well with the first two, but the other took years to get out on her own. My own daughter is on her own, raising her daughter, living life with her own little family.

    “Attachment parenting” – anything to keep us children…so we need nanny, cradle to grave?

Comments are closed.