Sons getting breast-fed a motherhood disgrace

This is something:

What it is, I don’t know. Is this good or bad for the country? I don’t know. Maybe it will create a strain of krav maga super-soldiers. Would that be good for the country? I don’t know.

I do know that I remember being four years old. I wouldn’t want to remember that. No offense. And that’s my entire take on this, whatever it is.

The brainiac super-sailors over at American Thinker had more to say about it.

May 11, 2012
Time Magazine’s motherhood cover is a disgrace.
Keith Riler

Time Magazine’s motherhood cover is a disgrace.

It looks nothing like the real and loving act of a mother nursing her baby and is thus vulgar.

For the right-wing, reality is always about appearances. For the rest of us, the image is too much reality. Compared to their Eisenhower reference three-by-fives, it might as well be Martian. They probably felt the same way about an Arab war until the Iraqi insurgency kicked in and Americans began getting torn to pieces. Then they remembered World War II and were immensely relieved. Whew, thank god . .

The child is oddly and uncomfortably too old and large and both parties are coldly depicted without any trapping of nursing, suggesting pornography.

Heh, that’s actually true. But porn, we shall say, has crowded my particular reality.

And, of course, the composition glorifies single motherhood.

Are You Mom Enough, Buddy?

It is anti-family, anti-child, a disgrace and a sixties clichĂ© for “liberation.” It is also a perfect snapshot of Barak Obama’s way “Forward” for the country.

Front and center, maggots! Standard issue tatas in your mouths and we staaaarrrrt marrrchiiinggg . . hep-two-three-lick hep-two-three-sip.

Share