TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

User avatar
Simulist
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by Simulist »

MinM wrote:
Image

Oh, MinM... LMFAO.

:D
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
8bitagent
Posts: 12250
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by 8bitagent »




Funny...Time chose not to ask her to breastfeed her adopted black child for the cover.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/carolinehow ... ian-child/

I can imagine the execs at Time "Well, we want to play provocative with themes of incest, child smut, women empowerment, breastfeeding debate...but ooh hey hey now...a
black toddler suckling on the teet of a white woman...that's gone to far!"
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
Joe Hillshoist
Posts: 10626
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by Joe Hillshoist »

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Simulist wrote:
Nordic wrote:This picture disgusts me, not because it shows a woman breastfeeding, but because it is utterly exploitive.

Can you imagine how this went down? "Hey, we've got this really attractive Mom who still breastfeeds her huge-ass kid!"

Is this actually the model's own kid? I'm sort of hoping so.


If not its a bit sus.


I heard it was her kid so this becomes a bit of a beat up.

Who cares how long she breast feeds for? maybe after 6 or 7 years she should stop. Till then its none of my business.
Nordic
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by Nordic »

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Simulist wrote:
Nordic wrote:This picture disgusts me, not because it shows a woman breastfeeding, but because it is utterly exploitive.

Can you imagine how this went down? "Hey, we've got this really attractive Mom who still breastfeeds her huge-ass kid!"

Is this actually the model's own kid? I'm sort of hoping so.


If not its a bit sus.


I heard it was her kid so this becomes a bit of a beat up.

Who cares how long she breast feeds for? maybe after 6 or 7 years she should stop. Till then its none of my business.



Exactly. Which is why its got no business being on the cover of time, or having them pose in a professional photo studio to be exploited by these scumfuckers.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
User avatar
OpLan
Posts: 435
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:40 pm
Location: at the end of my tether

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by OpLan »

"the kid's camo pants."
According to the Secret Sun,it's Horus,the God of war,stood on the throne which Isis his mother usually wears on her head.
Joe Hillshoist
Posts: 10626
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by Joe Hillshoist »

Nordic wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Joe Hillshoist wrote:
Simulist wrote:
Nordic wrote:This picture disgusts me, not because it shows a woman breastfeeding, but because it is utterly exploitive.

Can you imagine how this went down? "Hey, we've got this really attractive Mom who still breastfeeds her huge-ass kid!"

Is this actually the model's own kid? I'm sort of hoping so.


If not its a bit sus.


I heard it was her kid so this becomes a bit of a beat up.

Who cares how long she breast feeds for? maybe after 6 or 7 years she should stop. Till then its none of my business.



Exactly. Which is why its got no business being on the cover of time, or having them pose in a professional photo studio to be exploited by these scumfuckers.


Ha thats what i was thinking, then yesterday arvo i was at an anti CSG rally ... lots of people were going on about breast feeding. Most of it was positive. So I dunno if i feel as bad about the cover as I did. I dunno. I can see your point but at the same time where i live women breast feed in public all the time and no one bats an eyelid. Even tho this is a totally artificial situation - being a cover shoot for Time - the principle is the same isn't it? In some ways it seems like the artificial situation was only caused to force the issue. Woman breast feed, in public, and that, and the other details surrounding it should be left alone cos they are none of our business.
User avatar
JackRiddler
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by JackRiddler »

IanEye wrote:I'm curious to know what Hugh makes of the kid's camo pants.


Do you really need Hugh to tell you what to make of the junior soldier at the breast of our national mother fulfilling her duty to state and country and god?
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
crikkett
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by crikkett »

JackRiddler wrote:
IanEye wrote:I'm curious to know what Hugh makes of the kid's camo pants.


Do you really need Hugh to tell you what to make of the junior soldier at the breast of our national mother fulfilling her duty to state and country and god?

The God of Cricket, no less.
User avatar
Simulist
Posts: 4713
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:13 pm
Location: Here, and now.

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by Simulist »

crikkett wrote:
JackRiddler wrote:
IanEye wrote:I'm curious to know what Hugh makes of the kid's camo pants.


Do you really need Hugh to tell you what to make of the junior soldier at the breast of our national mother fulfilling her duty to state and country and god?

The God of Cricket, no less.

Ha! Yeah, I saw that, too. :D
"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."
    — Alan Watts
User avatar
brekin
Posts: 3229
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 5:21 pm

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by brekin »

Well I for one am incredibly offended.
I think the mother is supremely selfish and
very irresponsible to breast feed her
grown child on such a large chair.
If he is going to be more then 12 inches
off the ground then he should definitely
be wearing a helmet and whats more probably some
type of safety harness. I mean what if he wants to
play on his ipad while he breast feeds? It is an accident
waiting to happen and Time should know better.
If I knew all mysteries and all knowledge, and have not charity, I am nothing. St. Paul
I hang onto my prejudices, they are the testicles of my mind. Eric Hoffer
Joe Hillshoist
Posts: 10626
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2006 10:45 pm

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by Joe Hillshoist »

crikkett wrote:
JackRiddler wrote:
IanEye wrote:I'm curious to know what Hugh makes of the kid's camo pants.


Do you really need Hugh to tell you what to make of the junior soldier at the breast of our national mother fulfilling her duty to state and country and god?

The God of Cricket, no less.


Whats Warney got to do with this?
User avatar
JackRiddler
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by JackRiddler »

Joe Hillshoist wrote:
crikkett wrote:
JackRiddler wrote:
IanEye wrote:I'm curious to know what Hugh makes of the kid's camo pants.


Do you really need Hugh to tell you what to make of the junior soldier at the breast of our national mother fulfilling her duty to state and country and god?

The God of Cricket, no less.


Whats Warney got to do with this?


Whoever it is, it's the headline in the upper right.

Seriously, this cover isn't about attachment parenting or people's choices about breastfeeding. That may be the story on the inside. I have no particular opinion on whether attachment parenting or breastfeeding past infancy are good or bad or related to "infantilization," but this is about infantilization as a concept. Sons should be their mothers' until they become the military state's.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
Nordic
Posts: 14230
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:36 am
Location: California USA

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by Nordic »

My wife's response to the photo:

1. If he's an adopted son, how did she ever start making breast milk in the first place.

2. That's a big kid, and there's no way her breast milk can be sustaining him at this point. Her tits just aren't big enough. Obviously this is just a snack for him.
"He who wounds the ecosphere literally wounds God" -- Philip K. Dick
User avatar
barracuda
Posts: 12890
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:58 pm
Location: Niles, California

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by barracuda »

Nordic wrote:1. If he's an adopted son, how did she ever start making breast milk in the first place.


    How To Induce Lactation

    To induce lactation a woman's breasts must be stimulated, by herself and/or her partner, for approximately 20 minutes, (10 minutes each breast), up to 8 times each day. By far the best method of breast stimulation is suckling by an adult partner; however, lactation may also be induced by a combination of hand massage and nipple stimulation. The essential hormones which cause breast milk to be produced are secreted in to a woman's blood stream for approximately 10 minutes and usually stay in her system for no more than 20 minutes. Suckling or stimulating beyond 20 minutes does little good, because her hormone level has returned to normal after that time.

2. That's a big kid, and there's no way her breast milk can be sustaining him at this point. Her tits just aren't big enough. Obviously this is just a snack for him.


    Kids' snacking can be OK, even healthful

    Times have changed since the days when moms routinely said to children eating between meals, "You'll ruin your appetite!" Nowadays the value of snacks as quick pick-me-ups is pretty widely recognized. Snacks are recognized as important part of a child's diet.
User avatar
JackRiddler
Posts: 16007
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City

Re: TIME's covers -- pure propaganda

Post by JackRiddler »

He's not the adopted son, he's the biological son. Upthread. Read.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
Post Reply