Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8608357)

I guess I'm in the minority. I don't understand what's creepy about feeding your child. The picture is shocking because you don't see it often (or at all), and was shot in such a manner to put it out there front and center. It's no coincidence they chose a shot of the woman breastfeeding a standing child.

And why should the mother have to go to a bathroom or private place to give her child nutrition? There's nothing obscene about it. I'd venture to guess most people on this board were breastfed. And if it's nutritionally sound and the parents/child are comfortable with it, what's the big deal if the kid is 3 or 4?

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 8608362)

It's not creepy, it's been the standard for human development for thousands of years, and still is in most places not called America. It's the best food possible for children, so why should they not? I see no reason to use speaking as a determination for appropriate weaning time, other than you wanting to use it.

Originally Posted by Blick (Post 8608111)

The picture is meant to be controversial. It's a magazine cover, not an accurate portrayal of breastfeeding in their home.

The World Health Organization recommends breastfeeding until two years of age and beyond.

If the mother and child are still comfortable with it, then what's the problem? You recognized the benefits of it.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8608381)

At 4, it is.

If the kid can ask for the tit, its creepy.

Hey, I was breastfed. But my mother stopped when I was around 1.

IMO, 3 is too old to be on a bottle, much less a breast.

Creepy.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8608381)

At 4, it is.

If the kid can ask for the tit, its creepy.

Hey, I was breastfed. But my mother stopped when I was around 1.

IMO, 3 is too old to be on a bottle, much less a breast.

Creepy.

Originally Posted by Bob Dole (Post 8608389)

You realize that's aimed at nations with fewer resources, right?

And specifically, they say:

.

http://www.who.int/maternal_child_ad.../en/index.html

Sorry. If your kid is talking and dressing himself, he doesn't need the tit any more.

(He also doesn't need that ****ing bag of chips and a 2-liter of Pepsi.)

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow (Post 8608390)

I haven't been there in a 4 years, but even bottles are done by 12 -18 months and you are starting on actual foods right? Or was that just my kids?

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 8608393)

If you can bring any sort of evidence to the table to support your opinion, please do. However, you shouldn't be surprised if parents choose to do what's best for their child rather than taking into account the opinion of some random uninformed person who thinks it's "creepy."

Originally Posted by frazod (Post 8608372)

Are you going to let you kid crap in the hallway just because he's got to go, and it's a natural function?

What part of CIVILIZED SOCIETY don't you get? :shake: This isn't the ****ing Congo.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8608403)

My son was done with the bottle just after 1. We just slipped in a sippy cup. It was seamless lol.

Originally Posted by MagicHef (Post 8608396)

How did you miss the "or beyond"? It's right there, in the quote, right behind the words you put in bold.

Originally Posted by Dave (Post 8608406)

Uninformed? I have a 13 yr old son, dumbass.

Would you let a 5 yr old walk around with a bottle?





The answer to that should be **** no.

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 8608415)

Love the ridiculous comparisons of breastfeeding to pooping on the floor and masturbating in public.

:shake: