Ammo For Sale

« « “cheap 22” | Home | Random Obama and gay marriage thoughts » »

What the hell?

The ridiculous cover of Time magazine on attachment parenting is pretty close to child porn.

23 Responses to “What the hell?”

  1. John Smith. Says:

    Lucky kid…

  2. Robb Allen Says:

    Kind of interesting – if the boy is actually her son, not porn. If it isn’t…. well. Also makes me wonder if it’s Photoshopped to get around any legal issues.

    There are plenty of people who breast feed their kids well past what normal people would consider acceptable. I’ve heard of 12 year olds still getting the boob.

  3. Weer'd Beard Says:

    I haven’t seen it yet because I don’t own a Doctor’s office!

  4. Alan Says:

    Wow, when they say “attachment” they really mean it.

  5. Andy Says:

    “Iíve heard of 12 year olds still getting the boob.”


  6. Laughingdog Says:

    If it qualifies as child porn, it doesn’t matter if it’s Photoshopped or not.

  7. homedad Says:

    Porn or not (and IMO pictures of kids nursing should not be considered porn) it is definitely exploitative. It’s so slimy in a TIME magazine way, and that is what gives the impression that it is ‘dirty’.

    Epic redundancy: “…ridiculous cover of Time magazine…”

  8. Bryan S. Says:

    It used to be common to breast feed well into the 4th and 5th years, and it was (and is) good for brain development and immune system development.

    It wasnt put on the covers of magazines, but I dont have an issue with it. Its not a sexual thing, so is it really porn?

  9. Bubblehead Les Says:

    The REAL Question though is why is TIME is still in Business?

  10. Hippies Suck Says:

    Time is what the News Sentinel would be if they had a bigger stage.

  11. Sigivald Says:

    That image does not resemble “child porn” in the slightest – “child porn” is an image that sexualizes the child (either as an object or participant), right?

    And, uh, I ain’t seeing even a shadow of a hint of that here.

    Who’s this notionally meant to titillate? Nobody.

    Who’s showing any hint of sexualization in that picture? Nobody.

  12. SayUncle Says:

    it’s more about age appropriate behavior I think

  13. HL Says:

    You could put a “lady liberty” tiara on the mother, and replace the kid with “Julia” and you’d have a Obama’s new campaign poster.

  14. xpo172 Says:

    Oh Dear…..

    Tools –> History –> Clear All Browsing Data

  15. Usagi Says:

    To be fair, it’s more like porn and a child.

    Nice tata, but those attachment parenting types are looney tunes. My soon-to-be-ex-SIL is one. Totally batshit.

  16. Aaron Says:

    I’m guessing that this one is bizarre and controversial enough to be collectible.

  17. Jerry Says:

    I have son who was once twelve, back when my baud rate was around 15k. I would let him on the innernut, because they had ‘putors in his school. One fine day, I realize that my son is better than me, at more than Nintendo. He had discovered Nabokov. Or, at least, the ‘L-word’. I won’t type it. I also have a daughter. Long story short, son gets a looooong talking to. Whole nine yards, and then ‘sommore.

  18. ctr Says:

    She looks of legal age to me.

  19. Jerry Says:

    @ ctr:

  20. Kristopher Says:

    It’s CP if that kid isn’t an 18+ year old midget.

    If a prosecutor takes an interest in this, Time is screwed.

  21. comatus Says:

    Kristopher, great title for Booker T’s next album.

  22. teke Says:

    The kid having a stupid grin and two thumbs up may be more fitting.

  23. Guav Says:

    Breast feeding is not pornography, you freaks.