Time Magazine’s ‘Provocative’ Cover Sparks Mommy Debates

The headline reads, “Are You Mom enough?” But if that wasn’t enough to fan the flames of the Mommy Wars, there’s the photo that goes with it: A pretty young woman wearing skinny jeans and a tank top, nursing her nearly 4-year-old son.

It’s meant to illustrate a story about Dr. William Sears and attachment parenting but, given that there’s more to that movement than extended breastfeeding, it seems as if Time magazine was going for sensationalism and shock value. It’s working.

“As a pediatrician, I believe that every mother should breastfeed her child for at least six months, preferably a year (even longer if they like),” KP.MD commented. “This, however, is extreme. And the photograph — everything about its composition – sends a message that I find tasteless and more than a little disturbing.”


Photographer Martin Schoeller says that the photo, as well as the portraits he shot of other attachment parenting moms nursing their kids, was inspired by the iconic religious image of the Madonna and Child. The boy on the cover is standing on a chair, which makes him look both taller and older — a technique that Schoeller says he used to underscore how unusual extended breastfeeding can seem. Though plenty of people seem to think that Time has gone to far — The Atlantic Wire called the cover “PG-13″ and The Right Scoop describes it as “seriously NSFW” and “soft porn” — to others, the photo wasn’t the most offensive part.

“While this picture is gawk-tastic, I’m more disturbed by the title of the article. ‘Are You Mom Enough?'” Yahoo! reader Chrissy from Conroe, Texas, commented. “I’m sorry…’Mom Enough?’ So this woman is deemed more of a ‘mom’ simply because she chose to breastfeed her child until he was damn near as tall as she is?”

Do you think Time went too far with this magazine cover? Share your opinions with us!

Source & Image: Yahoo News

NY Court: Viewing Child Porn Online Not A Crime

In a controversial decision that is already sparking debate around the country, the New York Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday that viewing child pornography online is not a crime.

The decision came after Marist College professor James D. Kent was sentenced to prison in August 2009 after more than 100 images of child pornography were found on his computer’s cache. Whenever someone views an image online, a copy of the image’s data is saved in the computer’s memory cache.

The ruling attempts to distinguish between individuals who see an image of child pornography online versus those who actively download and store such images, MSNBC reports. And in this case, it was ruled that a computer’s image cache is not the same as actively choosing to download and save an image.


“Merely viewing Web images of child pornography does not, absent other proof, constitute either possession or procurement within the meaning of our Penal Law,” Senior Judge Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick wrote in the decision.

The court said it must be up to the legislature, not the courts, to determine what the appropriate response should be to those viewing images of child pornography without actually storing them. Currently, New York’s legislature has no laws deeming such action criminal. As The Atlantic Wire notes, under current New York law, “it is illegal to create, possess, distribute, promote or facilitate child pornography.” But that leaves out one critical distinction, as Judge Ciparick stated in the court’s decision.

Do you agree with the ruling of New York’s court? Why or why not?

Source: Yahoo News

Image: Mashable