What about the boy?

Time magazine made news this week with their controversial cover. The cover features Jamie Lynn Grumet breastfeeding her 3-year-old son. The photo concerned the Time’s article about “attachment parenting,” a theory of parenting that “focuses on the nurturing connection that parents can develop with their children. That nurturing connection is viewed as the ideal way to raise secure, independent, and empathetic children. Proponents of this parenting philosophy include the well-known pediatrician William Sears, MD. They make the case that a secure, trusting attachment to parents during childhood form the basis for secure relationships and independence as adults.”

This is all well and good for the first few months of a child’s life. Yet many of those who practice “attachment parenting” refuse to stop it. Instead, they make excuses like this:

“In some ways, the photo was sensational because the child breast-feeding was so much older than the cultural norm,” said [Miranda] Hallquist, a La Leche League of Pittsburgh East leader. “In a way, I think it was good to get it into the cultural debate but people could miss the point if they wonder whether they should or should not see it or are confused by ‘Are You Mom Enough?’ “

This is not healthy cultural debate. This is issue with parents not respecting children’s boundaries. 

One woman, Lynn Stuckey,  who practiced “attachment parenting” continued to force her 5-year-old son to breastfeed after he told a babysitter he wanted to stop but his mother would not let him. She also slept in the nude with her son. This resulted in Illinois removing her son only to give him back to her. Stuckey appeared on Good Morning America, still forcing her now 8-year-old son to breastfeed.

The “attachment parenting” advocates may think they have good intentions, but the theory seems to be more about them than the children. As Dr. Keith Ablow explained:

[…] Is Grumet responding to real and healthy needs emanating from her son’s psyche, or is he responding to her potentially outsized needs to be the center of attention and the object of desire (if only for warmth). Who, we can legitimately ask, is feeding whom?

See, Grumet loves being photographed. And she apparently loves having her son breastfeed. And she loves attention. And she’s happy enough to get naked in front of other people (which there may be nothing wrong with—for her). But that may or may not be the case for her 3-year-old boy, which seems not to have mattered to her—at all. And if his will was bent to hers in order to have him suck his mother’s nipple in front of a photographer and makeup artist and art director and all of America, then it stands to reason that his will may be being bent to hers in all sorts of ways—including protracted breastfeeding.

The truth is that what Time magazine may have unwittingly captured and been party to was a grotesque form of psychological abuse—the parading into public of an intimate moment (intimate for mother and child) at the sole direction of that child’s mother, who didn’t stop to think that her child may not be able at the age of three to know what he thinks about the whole thing, much less to stop it, if he wanted to.

At best, this is a huge boundary violation. It goes beyond a child not wanting to ween, and goes to a parent “allowing” a child to do what he “wants.” It is the same logic many who sexually abuse child use. It is the “I didn’t make them do it. They wanted to do it.” excuse, and it is not a very good one. As Lynn Stuckey showed, it can easily become outright abusive.

What makes this particularly bad is the way it was couched. Here is this pretty model showing off for the camera while her son suckles her breast. It has a thinly veiled sexual element, and that makes it all the more disturbing.

Fortunately, enough people are put off by this that they are calling for what it is rather than pretending it is something beautiful and special.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “What about the boy?

  1. It’s more like munchausen by media. She used her child to gain attention, with no regard for the well being of the child. Similar to the lesbian scout leader who dragged her seven year old on national TV to make her personal vendetta against the boy scouts. The commentator literally had to put words in the boys mouth because he was obviously too young to know what was going on.

  2. Well, from my first glance at the photo, I could instantly tell that SOMEBODY’S needs are being met. But they ain’t necessarily the kid’s needs.

  3. How is this any different than child pornography?

    It is not. If this woman took the picture herself and shared it with anyone she would be charged with possessing and trading child porn.

  4. I’ve been finding it a bit confronting to say the least. I was abused by my aunt when only a couple of years older than the kid in that photo.

    I’m generally not fazed by breastfeeding, even in public. I’ve even had quite a few clients feed while I did their tax returns. However the Time cover photo is seriously creeping me out. Intentious has published a couple of the other Time photos. Neither of them creep me out anything like the cover pic.

  5. Gwallan, I had the same reaction because I was about three-years-old when my aunt started in on me. I have seen the other photos, and I agree that they do not have the same creep factor as the Time cover.

  6. I agree. The other photos would have been much more apprporiate.

    But speaking of moms, check out the Mother’s Day thread at Manboobz.

  7. “It is not. If this woman took the picture herself and shared it with anyone she would be charged with possessing and trading child porn.”

    You sure about that? I’m skeptical.

  8. PM, people have faced child porn charges for taking pictures of their children bathing and trying to get the film developed at CVS or Walgreens.

  9. Oh, bathing, for sure. I meant breastfeeding, though. I don’t mean to nitpick. Your overall premise is right on. I really feel for that kid.

  10. White women do not care..What are they thinkng about.What about the Afrikan descended children she hides whom many think is already a wimp..What is she thinking?Probably.. sick insane and racist..Now there is no sense in responding my mail only accepts friends and i could care less about what anyone thinks?

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s