I am actually surprised it took TIME magazine this long in doing a cover story on the subject. Plenty of stuff here for subscribers and non-subscribers:

http://www.time.com/time/

THE HORROR! The look of the self-satisfied moos standing their with their adult children (well, practically) sucking on their udders. . . . . . . glaring into the camera lens as if to say "I dare you to think of me sexually with a kid sucking off of me!"

BLEAH! There is no word appropriate enough, save for BLEAAAAAAH and VOMMITTTT.

She's an incestuous pedo-moo. She is smug, because she feels protected by the law and society in general. That's why she has that little smirk on her face, while she gets off by her way too old son suckling at her tit.

Letter from disgusted reader

Obviously someone agrees that this is completely disgusting.

“I don’t have pet peeves, I have major, psychotic fucking hatreds.”
— George Carlin

Time magazine should do stories about the Cult of Motherhood, the relentless push to Breed, the "war on women", and the steady erosion of women's rights.

In fact - I think I will email them these suggestions.

Quote
frenzy
Letter from disgusted reader

Obviously someone agrees that this is completely disgusting.

Yes, but I hate how they think it's still okay to titfeed A FUCKING THREE YEAR OLD.

Quote
mumofsixbirds

Quote
frenzy
Letter from disgusted reader

Obviously someone agrees that this is completely disgusting.

Yes, but I hate how they think it's still okay to titfeed A FUCKING THREE YEAR OLD.

I noticed that too.
That kid needs milk from a sippy cup, not a damn tit.

“I don’t have pet peeves, I have major, psychotic fucking hatreds.”
— George Carlin

Yeah I noted the 'lighten up" twit. What the fuck? Yep, keep defending that pedophile, asshole.

Why can't the mom pump her breast and give the brat her boob milk from a cup? Because she gets physical and/or sexual satisfaction from it, loves using it to control the brat. Whether she wants to admit it or not.

When I was almost age 4 (like this kid SUPPOSEDLY is) I was in pre-kindergarten and could already read (and had been formula fed). I can't imagine leaving school where I read, drew numbers and stick figures to go suck on Mom's tit. Not to mention - some kids even back in the seventies at age 3 and 4 were skilled in the art of teasing other kids. What happens of other kids get wind of the fact Suckley still nurses? He'll become the victim of bullying.

Maybe now these titfeeding-toddler moos will be called out for their pedophilia.

Breastfeeding is nothing more than a way for moothers to experience sexual pleasure and have complete control over their brat. Its all part of the deranged cult of Motherhood.

ugh I want to throw up now. How do people delude themselves that this is acceptable? And why doesn't it suprise me that it was some crusty old white male doctor that initiated the whole thing. Fuck. I need a shower and some brain bleach. Stat.

Quote
rudegubmintworker
What happens of other kids get wind of the fact Suckley still nurses? He'll become the victim of bullying.

Very true. And because it's documented this extended nursing bullshit will probably follow him for a long time. Then there's the question of what happens if Suckley is finally weaned against his will. What happens if he tries to nurse off a teacher or a classmate?

I saw this on People, begrudgingly clicked the link and when I saw that cover, literally yelled out, "GET THE HELL OUTTA HERE!"

I rarely bought Time anyway, but now I will have nothing to do with them if I can help it. That is the most disgusting cover I've ever seen. Disgusting!!

Quote
frenzy
Letter from disgusted reader

Obviously someone agrees that this is completely disgusting.

I'm sure TIME couldn't care less. It's all about the pagehits these days, and controversy generates those--I think "newsworthiness" is a concern far down the list. Look at the other "news stories" linked on that page, the foremost one of which is "What's Your Parenting Style?" Or look at Epicurious hiring our favorite gluten-free matron as a "writer." Meaningless dreck.

That kid is going to be a major target for years to come thanks to his asshole of a mother.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/time-breastfeeding-cover-sparks-immediate-controversy-151539970.html

This so clearly attention whoring. If you really still feel the need to titfeed your chyld (not your babby), you don't do it in a sexualized pose on the cover of a magazine. It looks like the kyd is a lover and not just feeding.

::brbl

I just saw this and came directly to the living room to see if anyone had posted yet! Frightening, right?

O-M-F-G !!!! That is just WRONG! It's not attention whoring as much as it is just disgusting, nasty, and perverted. (notice that the bfing chyld is a boy) I don't recall seeing older bfing girls. Yes... perverted!

Nassssssssssssssssstay!

That is one tall 3yo!

Quote
stillcrazy4cats
That is one tall 3yo!

That little shit is almost 4. I cannot believe how perverted (and proud of it) she is. We are sharing the planet with degenerates and attention whores.

Henry Luce must be spinning in his grave.

this is just wrong.

Quote
stillcrazy4cats
That is one tall 3yo!

I thought the kid was five.

I also posted a link to this on the weaner thread. Yikes. I'm all for breastfeeding, but this is a wee bit excessive. Now, if they showed a mom breastfeeding an infant on the cover of "Time" I'd hardly blink, but a kid that looks like he's in kindergarten? Ugh.

It is time to stop this shit. eyes2

Before this moo ends up titfeeding her own grandbrats - spawned by her "little man", of course.