Time Magazine Gets Into The Child Pornography Business?

By | May 11, 2012

I’m not sure how the Left would act, if an image like this was on the cover of National Review or some other Right Wing publication, but since it’s on the cover of a progressive magazine nobody bats an eye. Still…. You’ve got to wonder how well this magazine cover plays at grocery checkout stands across the nation. I wouldn’t want to have to explain this little freak show to my children.

What do you think? Inappropriate or no big deal?

This post is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of CDN, Anomalous Media or any of its staff or contributors.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

10 thoughts on “Time Magazine Gets Into The Child Pornography Business?

  1. MT

    When does it become child abuse/porn? When he doesn’t need to use a chair?

  2. Bill

    The problem here is not the breast feeding. The problem is that in desperation Time Magazine chose to be inflamatory in order to sell their rag. Breast feeding, at this scale is done all over the world, and is so natural that in those cultures it is not even noticed. These are strictly decisions for a mother to make, and none of our business. If some guy is so depraved and rejected by women that this picture is sexually stimulating perhaps it is he that needs the therapy, not the woman needing to be restricted. Again, to repeat, the problem here is the weakness of Time Magazine to portray a story without resorting to images designed to insight public comment outside the issue.

  3. guest

    Some folks think this is just fine, not porn at all. Others here say they are turned on by it~ hence, the “porn” effect. Breastfeeding is wonderful, but it is one of those private acts, involving areas of a woman’s body that are sexually excited/exciting, that should properly remain covered and private.

    TIME, as a typical liberal, treating humans like nursing animals. No reverence at all. TIME is cursing itself out of existence. So be it.

  4. Joe Carlson

    Definitely child pornography. The child who appears in this image is not old enough to make a decision whether he wants to be publicly used by his mother in this way.

  5. Colleen

    I breastfed my child and am hugely supportive of it. I also support the right of mothers to breastfeed in public. There is an age at which one should stop – going past age 2 makes me think that maybe the mother has some dependency issues. So I’m not a fan of said image. But seriously, child pornography? Wtf? And besides Time is a progressive magazine? we liberal types may all look the same to you but we’re not really

  6. no

    child porn? and you wonder why people dont take christian conservatives seriously…

  7. Billy Bob Groundhog

    Just think of the heightened sexual experience you could share with her….wow. I confess, I’d LOVE to do that while making love to her. Just THINK of the intimacy we could share….;)

  8. KT

    Oh dear. The old “how am I going to tell my children” excuse. Listen buddy, just because you’re too lazy, too dumb, or too inept to discuss something that is, after all, perfectly natural, does not make it wrong.

    When did breast feeding become “child porn”?

    I think you have issues.

    1. ChiZZann

      Brilliant!!!! I Couldn’t have said it better myself!!

Comments are closed.