TIME Magazine puts 3-year-old boy sucking on his mom's breast on cover

[Dan Druff]

Unbelievable. I used to have respect for TIME (though this was many, many years ago), but this shit just borders on child porn (even if that's not the way the mother sees it.)

I don't mind them doing a story on 3-year-olds still breast feeding, but to put a posed picture of it on the cover?! And do you think they would have put this on the cover if the mom was 43 and saggy, rather than 26 and hot?

Three year olds are very aware of things, and it's just not appropriate for them to still be breastfeeding, especially given that there aren't really health benefits from doing so at that point.

Pretty pathetic that TIME is resorting to shock pictures (which at the same time will excite pedos) in order to sell magazines.

[BetCheckBet]

Agree with some of your points including the shock value. But totally disagree about child porn comments. I would barely consider this sexual and certainly not in terms of the child being sexualized.

[HEX]

That shit is hot.

[jsearles22]

That shit is hot.

They do say that breastfeeding helps new mothers lose the weight quicker. I guess after 3 years they become super hot!

[Dan Druff]

Agree with some of your points including the shock value. But totally disagree about child porn comments. I would barely consider this sexual and certainly not in terms of the child being sexualized.

You don't consider it sexual because you aren't a pedo.

I guarantee that child porn enthusiasts are going to love that picture.

Notice that the mother, in addition to being young and pretty, has her hair done, and is wearing makeup, a tank top, and tight jeans. So the picture is trying to grab your attention because you see a sexually appealing mom with her breast out, and then notice it's being sucked by a little boy (who actually looks older because of the stool he's standing on.) I guarantee this wouldn't have been on the cover if the mom was 43 and ugly.

They are sexualizing this without directly sexualizing it, so they can fall back on the excuse that they're just demonstrating breastfeeding at a late age. However, in reality, TIME was very aware of what they were really doing.

[FPS_Russia]

Fake outrage itt Druff is bolstering his Conservative credentials by oiling up the fake outrage machine.

Hex, Druff called you a pedo.

[HEX]

Fake outrage itt Druff is bolstering his Conservative credentials by oiling up the fake outrage machine.

Hex, Druff called you a pedo.

Druff needs to loosen up, nomesayin

[jsearles22]

Agree with some of your points including the shock value. But totally disagree about child porn comments. I would barely consider this sexual and certainly not in terms of the child being sexualized.

You don't consider it sexual because you aren't a pedo.

Druff, you clearly just said two things. 1- you find this picture sexual. 2- BCB doesnt find it sexual because he isnt a pedo.

Put those two together and you seemingly are implying that you sir are in fact a pedo?

[4Dragons]

You don't consider it sexual because you aren't a pedo.

Druff, you clearly just said two things. 1- you find this picture sexual. 2- BCB doesnt find it sexual because he isnt a pedo.

Put those two together and you seemingly are implying that you sir are in fact a pedo?

I think the pedo is the chick on the cover of the magazine. Would be funny if the authorities jail everyone involved over at time and they all end up on the deviant list. Oh and lol at print media taking its last breath looking for anything to get readers.

[PLOL]

Agree with some of your points including the shock value. But totally disagree about child porn comments. I would barely consider this sexual and certainly not in terms of the child being sexualized.

I guarantee that child porn enthusiasts are going to love that picture.

Anything you want to share Druff?


All joking aside though, Druff is basically right. But I can't say that this surprises me coming from Time. They're a washed up liberal has-been magazine that nobody buys anymore that is desperately trying to stay relevant. I suppose I should show a little more compassion towards Time Magazine seeing as I was chosen as their 'Person of the Year' in 2006, but they really are an irrelevant magazine at this point and have been for some time.

[jsearles22]

I guarantee that child porn enthusiasts are going to love that picture.

Anything you want to share Druff?


All joking aside though, Druff is basically right. But I can't say that this surprises me coming from Time. They're a washed up liberal has-been magazine that nobody buys anymore that is desperately trying to stay relevant. I suppose I should show a little more compassion towards Time Magazine seeing as I was chosen as their 'Person of the Year' in 2006, but they really are an irrelevant magazine at this point and have been for some time.

The picture is a link too, just click it!

[BetCheckBet]

Agree with some of your points including the shock value. But totally disagree about child porn comments. I would barely consider this sexual and certainly not in terms of the child being sexualized.

You don't consider it sexual because you aren't a pedo.

I guarantee that child porn enthusiasts are going to love that picture.

Notice that the mother, in addition to being young and pretty, has her hair done, and is wearing makeup, a tank top, and tight jeans. So the picture is trying to grab your attention because you see a sexually appealing mom with her breast out, and then notice it's being sucked by a little boy (who actually looks older because of the stool he's standing on.) I guarantee this wouldn't have been on the cover if the mom was 43 and ugly.

They are sexualizing this without directly sexualizing it, so they can fall back on the excuse that they're just demonstrating breastfeeding at a late age. However, in reality, TIME was very aware of what they were really doing.

I would argue that pedophiles would be less likely to be sexually excited by this picture than "normal" adults. Particularly because the sexualized image is on an attractive, adult, female. I don't believe pedophiles would be that turned on by this unless they had some breast feeding fetish. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of pedophiles hoarding breast feeding pictures.

[jsearles22]

You don't consider it sexual because you aren't a pedo.

I guarantee that child porn enthusiasts are going to love that picture.

Notice that the mother, in addition to being young and pretty, has her hair done, and is wearing makeup, a tank top, and tight jeans. So the picture is trying to grab your attention because you see a sexually appealing mom with her breast out, and then notice it's being sucked by a little boy (who actually looks older because of the stool he's standing on.) I guarantee this wouldn't have been on the cover if the mom was 43 and ugly.

They are sexualizing this without directly sexualizing it, so they can fall back on the excuse that they're just demonstrating breastfeeding at a late age. However, in reality, TIME was very aware of what they were really doing.

I would argue that pedophiles would be less likely to be sexually excited by this picture than "normal" adults. Particularly because the sexualized image is on an attractive, adult, female. I don't believe pedophiles would be that turned on by this unless they had some breast feeding fetish. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of pedophiles hoarding breast feeding pictures.

[PLOL]

Druff, can you call up Crazier Mike on radio to ask him his opinion on this?

[BCR]

You don't consider it sexual because you aren't a pedo.

I guarantee that child porn enthusiasts are going to love that picture.

Notice that the mother, in addition to being young and pretty, has her hair done, and is wearing makeup, a tank top, and tight jeans. So the picture is trying to grab your attention because you see a sexually appealing mom with her breast out, and then notice it's being sucked by a little boy (who actually looks older because of the stool he's standing on.) I guarantee this wouldn't have been on the cover if the mom was 43 and ugly.

They are sexualizing this without directly sexualizing it, so they can fall back on the excuse that they're just demonstrating breastfeeding at a late age. However, in reality, TIME was very aware of what they were really doing.

I would argue that pedophiles would be less likely to be sexually excited by this picture than "normal" adults. Particularly because the sexualized image is on an attractive, adult, female. I don't believe pedophiles would be that turned on by this unless they had some breast feeding fetish. I could be wrong but I'm not aware of pedophiles hoarding breast feeding pictures.

Certainly sexualized, but catered towards titillating a heterosexual male more than pedophiles.

[mtnDew]

FRAUD ALERT!

those small breast have no milk in them.