TIME cover story: Are you mom enough?

Quote
Snark Shark
they should have made THIS the cover pic. at least it would be more accurate!

is that a beach ball under her t-shirt? ::brbl

Quote
thursdaynext

Quote
deluded moo
I will post research when I'm not on my iPod and can look it up easily. A SUPER amazing thing about breast milk is that it will be different for each child, even if you're nursing a newborn and a 2-year-old at the same time. They've done extensive testing and found that, even though they can't explain how or why, a mom's milk with be nutritionally perfect for each child, no matter what age they are or if they nurse at the same time side-by-side or at seperate times. In addition, twins will also receive different breastmilk, specifically tailored to their own needs. It's an amazing creation, the human body!

:BS

There's a "SUPER Amazing" now?

It looks like someone has convinced It comes in Latte now!! Rah Rah Bimbo Moo here that Super Titties can dispense various 'blends' and flavors now too - much like the Squishy machine at the Quik E Mart.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. And no one knows how, or why, but it's Totally True and Tehs Moomy Bodys is SUPER AMAAAZEEEEN!!!

Quote
Zzelda

Quote
thursdaynext

Quote
deluded moo
I will post research when I'm not on my iPod and can look it up easily. A SUPER amazing thing about breast milk is that it will be different for each child, even if you're nursing a newborn and a 2-year-old at the same time. They've done extensive testing and found that, even though they can't explain how or why, a mom's milk with be nutritionally perfect for each child, no matter what age they are or if they nurse at the same time side-by-side or at seperate times. In addition, twins will also receive different breastmilk, specifically tailored to their own needs. It's an amazing creation, the human body!

:BS

There's a "SUPER Amazing" now?

It looks like someone has convinced It comes in Latte now!! Rah Rah Bimbo Moo here that Super Titties can dispense various 'blends' and flavors now too - much like the Squishy machine at the Quik E Mart.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. And no one knows how, or why, but it's Totally True and Tehs Moomy Bodys is SUPER AMAAAZEEEEN!!!

i'm wondering how they can do "extensive testing" on this. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that each tit-sucker's saliva has something in it that tells the tit what "flavor" to dispense. Wouldn't the "researcher" have to get the kid to suck the tit and then draw a sample out of the kid's mouth, or something along those lines? i don't see how else they could determine whether such a thing is true. And if they did do it that way, wouldn't the saliva contaminate the breast-milk sample?

This "super amazing" phenomenon does not hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny.




Oh, on the same topic - someone posted about this article on fakebook, and one of his friends wrote that extended breast feeding is a form of birth control because it causes "lactational amenorrhea" (sp?), a fancy term for not having a period while nursing. I wrote "breastfeeding is not a form of birth control. ask any hippie who has two kids aged less than a year apart". (They ALWAYS say "B-b-but i heard you can't get pregnant while you're breast-feeding!"). This person responded with http:// links to stuff she learned in "advanced antropology classes" about women in Papua New Guinea and shit, and about how the breast is over-sexualized in Western Society and all that crap, and i repeated my previous comment verbatim: "breast-feeding is not a form of birth control. Ask any hippie with two kids aged less than a year apart". she wrote "it's called lactational amenorrhea", and i said, "i guess the hippies must have been doing it wrong, then, because they still got pregnant."

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I have learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is easy and fun as hell"

:eatu

Lactational amenorrhea (WARNING: contains titfeeding pic)

It can be considered a form of "natural family planning" when not combined with chemicals or devices (including pumps). There are a bunch of other specific requirements too for it to be even remotely effective. I can imagine that it would be more effective in, say, Papua New Guinea or other places where nutrition-related amenorrhea might be more common than in the modern USA though. But it's only really effective for about 6 months anyway and, like any other form of birth control, has a failure rate (supposedly 0.5% for perfect use but 2% for imperfect use).

So yeah, in theory it kind of works and certainly can't hurt to try but relying on it is about as stupid as relying on pulling out or jumping up and down after sex or whatever.

Quote
SlumSlut

Quote
Zzelda

Quote
thursdaynext

Quote
deluded moo
I will post research when I'm not on my iPod and can look it up easily. A SUPER amazing thing about breast milk is that it will be different for each child, even if you're nursing a newborn and a 2-year-old at the same time. They've done extensive testing and found that, even though they can't explain how or why, a mom's milk with be nutritionally perfect for each child, no matter what age they are or if they nurse at the same time side-by-side or at seperate times. In addition, twins will also receive different breastmilk, specifically tailored to their own needs. It's an amazing creation, the human body!

:BS

There's a "SUPER Amazing" now?

It looks like someone has convinced It comes in Latte now!! Rah Rah Bimbo Moo here that Super Titties can dispense various 'blends' and flavors now too - much like the Squishy machine at the Quik E Mart.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense. And no one knows how, or why, but it's Totally True and Tehs Moomy Bodys is SUPER AMAAAZEEEEN!!!

i'm wondering how they can do "extensive testing" on this. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that each tit-sucker's saliva has something in it that tells the tit what "flavor" to dispense. Wouldn't the "researcher" have to get the kid to suck the tit and then draw a sample out of the kid's mouth, or something along those lines? i don't see how else they could determine whether such a thing is true. And if they did do it that way, wouldn't the saliva contaminate the breast-milk sample?

This "super amazing" phenomenon does not hold up to even the most superficial scrutiny.

No doubt this amazing "fact" was discovered when the researchers discovered that the moo produced different milk for each brand of milk pump she was introduced to. She made some specifically for the researcher with the moo fetish, and another one just for the researcher who is convinced that titty nectar cures pinkeye.

OK said research is right up there with finding out AIDS is spread by oral sex by testing simians. Who had to blow the monkeys to find this out?

Not buying the different milk story...that would be like saying I can get Sierra Nevada out of a skanky keg of Bud Lite by tapping it with a Sierra Nevada handle.

If the kid is old enough to chew steak, it is old enough to drink milk from a cup.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."

Quote
navi8orgirl
If the kid is old enough to chew steak, it is old enough to drink milk from a cup.

There's an ad campaign running in doctor's offices now, where I am. It shows a bottle with juice in it, versus a sippy cup with milk in it, with a big fat NO slash through the bottle. The text says something like "after 9 months, a cup is better." (I forget the exact age they mention, because it's irrelevant to me, but I'm damn sure it's well under 2 years, I think under 1 year.) Under that it lists the problems that can result from keeping them sucking on a bottle instead of sipping from a cup. I haven't been bored enough to read the list, but I guess it would include things like improper tooth development.

Possibly TMI:
I have never given birth or (obviously) tit fed; but I do get orgasms from tit sucking (by a consenting adult).

Just an anecdote: a woman told me her child needed all sorts of dental work because of extended night nursing..

What these mooos don't want to recognize is that a breast's ability to produce milk is somewhat limited...after a certain time, the ducts dry up. Eventually, nothing comes out at all.

Breasts are sexual for a much longer time than they are useful as a feeding device for their brats.
I know my breasts have been sexual most of my life, which would be around 25 years - much longer than most teets can produce milk for their brats.

No matter what moooos try to do to desexualize the breast, it will never happen. Breasts are sexual. Otherwise, how do they explain breast enhancement surgery, like enlargements and breast-lifts? Why would so many women bother with such augmentations, if they were not part of a woman's sexuality?

Why is so much porn devoted to breasts? If they weren't sexual, then all that tittie-porn would disappear. Guys wouldn't be so turned on when they saw a hot chick with big jugs. Women wouldn't enhance their breasts with low-cut tops, cutlets and lifting bras.

These bitches are delusional. They will never desexualize the breast as hard as they try. The reason? Breasts are sexual to many people. They may NOT be sexual to some people, but they are for many....and as loud as they mooo about it, they will never change that aspect of human nature.

John Rosemond has said, often: "The modern woman wouldn't dream of making her husband a sandwich on command, but she'll jump up and draw a glass of water for an able-bodied 4-year-old."

So, he went on to say, until mothers start demanding that kids work for them and not the other way around, women will never shake their image as a sex that LIKES being enslaved by one age group or another. "What's that I hear? Screaming and gnashing of teeth? Well ladies, all ya gotta do is prove me wrong."

And this level of "attachment parenting" does seem like slavery.

Rosemond's latest column is about the TIME issue:

http://www.kansascity.com/2012/05/15/3611077/john-rosemond-living-with-children.html

The cover story in last week's (May 21, 2012) Time Magazine is all about "why attachment parenting drives some mothers to extremes - and how Dr. Bill Sears became their guru." That is the article's subtitle. All I can say, somewhat hopefully, is "at last."

Because my next book, due out in the fall, contains a chapter on attachment parenting's destructive propaganda, I have done considerable research of late on the subject. For those of you who are not familiar with this latest parenting trend, attachment parenting is all about parents and children sleeping together, mothers "wearing" their infants (constantly carrying them around in slings), breastfeeding these same children until they are 2 or 3, and generally centering their lives on their kids in perpetuity.

Supposedly, all this fuss over children is essential to making sure mother and child properly "bond." According to the movement's high priest, California pediatrician Bill Sears, proper bonding is supposed to enhance the mother-child relationship, nurture better emotional health, and even make the child smarter and less likely to lie.

That's right! On his website, in an essay titled "11 Ways to Raise a Truthful Child," Sears writes "Connected children do not become habitual liars. They trust their caregivers and have such a good self-image they don't need to lie." In the same article, he promises parents who choose to adopt his method that they will develop the wisdom they need to make proper decisions for their children and that their children will "turn out better" than children raised otherwise.

By "turn out better" Sears means a child who is more intelligent, calm, secure, socially confident, empathic, and independent than a child raised according to prevailing Western norms. Mind you, he doesn't support this with any evidence obtained via the scientific method (an experiment involving both a control group and an experimental group) because he can't. There is no such evidence. To be blunt, Sears is making all this up. He's, well, let's just say he and his mother must not have properly bonded.

In fact, no unbiased research has ever affirmed any emotional or behavioral advantage to parent-child co-sleeping, extended breastfeeding, or "baby wearing." To cite but one example, James J. McKenna, director of the Mother-Baby Sleep Laboratory at the University of Notre Dame, says that he has yet to find any benefit to parents and children sleeping together. McKenna is widely regarded as the world's foremost authority on infant sleep issues.

The harm of attachment parenting is testified to by numerous ex-AP parents who have shared with me horror stories about the damage done to their marriages by co-sleeping and the problems they've had trying to get over-dependent children as old as eight out of their beds. In an Amazon consumer review of Sears's "The Attachment Parenting Book," a mother who is trying to recover from his advice with two small children says, "This book ought to come with a warning!"

When all is said and done, the only person who seems to have benefitted from attachment parenting is Dr. Bill Sears.

(end)

HAHAHA!!! Did anyone see this? They got the facial expressions perfectly. larious

"Are you mom enough?"

No, either you're a mom, or you're not." Breeder

Quote
Snark Shark

Quote
navi8orgirl
OK said research is right up there with finding out AIDS is spread by oral sex by testing simians. Who had to blow the monkeys to find this out?

Probably Paris hilton.

Quote
mumofsixbirds
What these mooos don't want to recognize is that a breast's ability to produce milk is somewhat limited...after a certain time, the ducts dry up. Eventually, nothing comes out at all.

Breasts are sexual for a much longer time than they are useful as a feeding device for their brats.
I know my breasts have been sexual most of my life, which would be around 25 years - much longer than most teets can produce milk for their brats.

No matter what moooos try to do to desexualize the breast, it will never happen. Breasts are sexual. Otherwise, how do they explain breast enhancement surgery, like enlargements and breast-lifts? Why would so many women bother with such augmentations, if they were not part of a woman's sexuality?

Why is so much porn devoted to breasts? If they weren't sexual, then all that tittie-porn would disappear. Guys wouldn't be so turned on when they saw a hot chick with big jugs. Women wouldn't enhance their breasts with low-cut tops, cutlets and lifting bras.

These bitches are delusional. They will never desexualize the breast as hard as they try. The reason? Breasts are sexual to many people. They may NOT be sexual to some people, but they are for many....and as loud as they mooo about it, they will never change that aspect of human nature.

No more titty bars, either. Face it, no one goes to ogle knees and elbows.

They are sexual, and that is likely the real reason for EBF.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."

Attachment parunting turns out sociopaths. These moos who would not do anything for their husband but jump for their kyds, especially sons, do not ever let up. They will do the same when the kyd is 14, 25, 36, etc. The slavery is for life and the moos do it voluntarily because they want to be enslaved and they want also to be eternally exclusively bonded, the One for that chyld forever. It is an obsession.

Quote
mumofsixbirds
No matter what moooos try to do to desexualize the breast, it will never happen. Breasts are sexual. Otherwise, how do they explain breast enhancement surgery, like enlargements and breast-lifts? Why would so many women bother with such augmentations, if they were not part of a woman's sexuality?

Why is so much porn devoted to breasts? If they weren't sexual, then all that tittie-porn would disappear. Guys wouldn't be so turned on when they saw a hot chick with big jugs. Women wouldn't enhance their breasts with low-cut tops, cutlets and lifting bras.

These bitches are delusional. They will never desexualize the breast as hard as they try. The reason? Breasts are sexual to many people. They may NOT be sexual to some people, but they are for many....and as loud as they mooo about it, they will never change that aspect of human nature.

Interestingly, though, in the 1999 book "An Underground Education : The Unauthorized and Outrageous Supplement to Everything You Thought You Knew About Art, Sex, Business, Crime, Science, Medicine, and Other Fields of Human Knowledge" by Richard Zacks, it suggests that before the 20th century or so, big breasts were considered more peasant-like than sexy.

Here's the section (not sure which pages these are):

History's Quest: Avoiding Big Breasts

Large breasts--in the genre of Elle MacPherson, Sophia Loren, beloved Marilyn Monroe--have very, very rarely been venerated throughout the history of Western civilization. Americans refuse to believe it, but it's true: This 20th century (mostly American) obsession for over-sized mammaries on a thin frame is a complete aberration. The women who grace the covers of Playboy--with their birdlike shoulders and 3-D cleavage--would have been considered almost freaks in most of Europe and the United States through the mid-1800s. They'd have been viewed as too skinny, with a man's derriere, and their large breasts would have been deemed maternal, not sexual, and more suited for peasant wet nurses.

Martial, the Roman poet, wrote of the perfect breast as not overflowing one hand. And the Romans--so efficient in public works--left nothing to chance. The women of ancient Rome wore a "fascia," a light but firm undergarment to support and supress the bosom. "This device opposed the growth of the breasts," wrote Augustin Cabanes, a l9th-century medical historian, "just as tight shoes of the Chinese women reduced the size of their feet."

The ancient Greeks--during the so-called Golden Age of Aristotle and Aeschylus--had a temple dedicated to Aphrodite Kallipygeia, Aphrodite of the Beautiful Derriere. One Greek dramatist penning cosmetic advice to a prostitute recommends suppressing her large breasts while supplementing her hips via padding. "Like ourselves, the Greeks detested bulky breasts," stated another French medical historian in 1895, "the signs of beauty were elevation, smallness and regularity of contour."

Renaissance corsets so brutally squashed breasts that quite a few medical texts for women from that period discussed how to cure nipples inverted by a lifetime of corset-wearing.

Unlike today's Wonderbra, the prevailing challenge was always to minimize, not maximize, to understate, not poke somebody's eye out. "The formulas for reducing and firming up the breasts are countless," notes Dr. Cabanes elsewhere and cites by example a French handbook from the Renaissance. The Bastiment des receptes advises: "To make small breasts remain in that state and to reduce the size of large ones, take the main viscera (heart, liver, spleen, lungs) of a hare, mince them and mix with an equal part of ordinary honey. Apply this as a poultice to the breasts and surrounding areas and renew the application when dry."

Even the most cursory glance at sculpture through the ages reveals very few figures resembling Claudia Schiffer and many more resembling Venus de Milo, who'd be considered a bit zaftig today. Women who would have been a goddess for Sophocles are Helen Gurley Brown's mouseburgers.

(end)

Zacks also mentions Scarlett O'Hara's fierce determination to keep her waist under 20 inches(!) her entire life, despite having had three babies, and he explains why this was hardly an unusual attitude for the time.

Elle and Claudia are considered large breasted? Gimme theirs any day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From a bottle cap message on a Magic Hat #9 beer: Condoms Prevent Minivans
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to pick up a bus full of unruly kids and feed them gummi bears and crack, then turn them loose in Hobby Lobby to ransack the place. They will all be wearing T shirts that say "You Could Have Prevented This."

I think small boobies are much more attractive than large boobies. Also, my tits are small and i think even they are too heavy. I hate wearing a bra. I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down. I totally understand why someone with big boobs would want a reduction surgery, but can't wrap my mind around why someone would want an augmentation (except maybe in the case of a cancer survivor). I like small boobs on myself and am attracted to that look on other women. I guess i can't say it's a patriarchal guy-thing, since lots of lesbian and bisexual women are attracted to that physical aspect of women's bodies, as well as women receiving sexual pleasure through having their own breasts stimulated; but bigger is definitely not better. Although, lots of body-types are beautiful. Certainly, not all bodies are beautiful TO everyone, but there is no one type of physical appearance that is "the" ideal form to compare all others.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I have learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is easy and fun as hell"

:eatu

Howard Stern and his ugly as shit stylist with the laser pointer made the final determination on what is the ideal female body - zero body fat, long legs, medium/large fake breasts, totally hairless. End of story. larious

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

Meh, I have bigger boobs and during PMS time (ugh), they do feel heavy and uncomfortable. Then again, so does the rest of me. Otherwise, I've never had small ones, so I don't know what I'm missing, so to speak. I'd never get a reduction because I'd look disproportionate.

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

Meh, I have bigger boobs and during PMS time (ugh), they do feel heavy and uncomfortable. Then again, so does the rest of me. Otherwise, I've never had small ones, so I don't know what I'm missing, so to speak. I'd never get a reduction because I'd look disproportionate.

i didn't mean it that way. i meant that i can't imagine wishing for BIGGER boobs but i can imagine wishing for smaller ones. i don't think big boobs are ugly or that all women with big ones should have a reduction.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I have learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is easy and fun as hell"

:eatu

Quote
SlumSlut

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

Meh, I have bigger boobs and during PMS time (ugh), they do feel heavy and uncomfortable. Then again, so does the rest of me. Otherwise, I've never had small ones, so I don't know what I'm missing, so to speak. I'd never get a reduction because I'd look disproportionate.

i didn't mean it that way. i meant that i can't imagine wishing for BIGGER boobs but i can imagine wishing for smaller ones. i don't think big boobs are ugly or that all women with big ones should have a reduction.

Oh, I never took it as you saying all chesty chicks should have 'em reduced. Just offering up another perspective.

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut

Quote
blueorchid

Quote
SlumSlut
I don't know how women with big ones can stand carrying them around all the time and not being able to take them off ever. To me it would be like carrying a full back-pack wherever you go and never being able to put it down.

Meh, I have bigger boobs and during PMS time (ugh), they do feel heavy and uncomfortable. Then again, so does the rest of me. Otherwise, I've never had small ones, so I don't know what I'm missing, so to speak. I'd never get a reduction because I'd look disproportionate.

i didn't mean it that way. i meant that i can't imagine wishing for BIGGER boobs but i can imagine wishing for smaller ones. i don't think big boobs are ugly or that all women with big ones should have a reduction.

Oh, I never took it as you saying all chesty chicks should have 'em reduced. Just offering up another perspective.

O h good... i was not looking forward to another "people-come-in-all-shapes-and-sizes" lecture, LOL.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I have learned that pleasing everyone is impossible, but pissing everyone off is easy and fun as hell"

:eatu

lenora, that was interesting. It quite makes sense, though, given that in those days women had lots of children, and the wealthy would hire a wet nurse instead of nursing the infants themselves. If breasts get larger from pregnancy and from breast-feeding, large breasts would naturally be associated with a woman too poor to prevent her breasts from swelling up.

It's not dissimilar to how a pale complexion once indicated a woman who didn't have to work in the sun, but (before cancer scares and tanning creams) later it came to mean a woman without the leisure to spend time lying in the sun.

In all cases, it's about contrasting wealth with the condition that workers will naturally acquire.

...and if you look at modern breast feeding in this light, the woman who "has to" go to the office will never practice extended breast feeding. Only a woman who has plenty of free time will be able to do this. I do wonder if they're trying to show their wealth by advertising their ability to engage in a leisure activity (subconciously, because outwardly they're trying to push perfect motherhood). It just hasn't taken off among the celebrities, who, by and large, are still following the cult of the eternally youthful body (which means no obvious marks of motherhood).