If you are a parent or follow the media at all you have probably seen the controversial cover picture on the latest issue of Time magazine. The image has been very deliberately staged to look awkward and unnatural, make the toddler look older than he is and sexualise the mother. The goal was to insight debate and sell magazines and in that I am sure they have succeeded. Everyone is talking about it and many people from differing positions are reacting with disgust. Well so am I. And no, I am not disgusted to see a mother feeding her child on the cover of a magazine. I am disgusted with the narrow minded hatred that so many people are responding with. I am disgusted that a mother trying to do what is best for her child is being called a child abuser. Over the last few days I have been following the many articles and comments spreading over the internet like a virus and it has sickened me for so many reasons. In a world that only works when we keep an open mind and be kind to each other, witnessing all this ignorance and hate makes me sick to my stomach, literally. Last night I felt so emotional about it that I couldn’t sleep, I just lay there wondering what on earth the world is coming to. I’m not quite sure why this has affected me so strongly but there you go, it has.

It was a funny thing having a baby and realizing that my breasts suddenly had a function so far outside of the realm they had occupied before. It took a little bit of a mental shift but maternal instinct made that easy because when Finn was born all I wanted to do was nourish him and see him thrive and I had just the thing to make this happen. (Read more about our breastfeeding journey here.) After all, while breasts might be pretty to look at and yes most men do love to look at them, we shouldn’t loose sight of the fact that we have them in order to feed our children, that is their one and only job.

Images of breasts as objects of sexual desire are being thrust at us from every angle, so much so that some people are so attached to the idea of breasts being sexual that they find their actual function disturbing. I am not denying that breasts can be sexual in the right context but then so can whipped cream and we don’t scream with disgust when we see that on our pancakes. The thing is, it is all about context. To take another example, you can undress to your underwear in a sexual way and it would be inappropriate to do that in public but you can undress to your underwear and get a breast exam or have a massage, this is not sexual or inappropriate. Similarly, in the context of feeding our children, getting our breasts out is not sexual, of course.

While, many people acknowledge the benefits of breastfeeding a baby, they are uncomfortable with the idea of breastfeeding a toddler. We don’t see it very often in Western culture but the World Health Organisation recommends breastfeeding “up to two years or beyond” and breastfeeding until 4 years old or older is the norm in many other parts of the world (read this example). During pregnancy our bodies prepare to produce milk for the next seven years or so. It is natural and healthy to breastfeed a toddler if they still want to nurse, so why are we as a society so uncomfortable with the idea? It doesn’t become sexual just because the baby is bigger and starts wearing shoes and socks. It’s still just a baby being fed and nurtured. A lot of people seem to feel that it is unnecessary and therefore wrong to continue to breastfeed after a baby can feed themselves. True a toddler can probably get a lot of nourishment from food but what about when the child is sick and looses his appetite or goes through a faze of refusing all solids except rice-cakes or you are stuck in a delayed train or get lost on a bush walk or stuck on a roof top in the middle of a flood? Wouldn’t it be nice if you could offer your child something to stop him from getting hungry or thirsty? Oh wait you can, nature gave you a back-up plan.

Even if there is no risk of a mother and baby ever being stranded without food or water (though really this could happen to anyone), would it be so bad if the mother continued to breastfeed solely because it afforded her a way to comfort, nurture and bond with her child? Isn’t that what we aim to do as mothers?

Finn came down with the flu the night before last and yesterday he was so sick and so miserable that by about noon it all got too much for him. So I lay down with him and he slept wrapped in my arms for four solid hours, only interrupted by feeding every hour or so but without opening his eyes or fully waking up. He woke up from his nap refreshed and looking one hundred times better. It was 4pm, he had slept right through lunch and it was getting on for his dinner time but I didn’t have to worry, as he had got his nourishment from my breast-milk during our nap and now he had the energy to sit up in his high-chair and have a good dinner, which he did. He also got the antibodies that I had produced especially for him to fight this very flu (which I had before him). Had he been a little older, would this have suddenly been the wrong thing to do? Should I have let him go without that long healing sleep, woken him up and made him sit at the table to eat his meal?

I am not saying everyone should continue breastfeeding their child until they go to school, or even at all if it doesn’t work for you. All I am saying is, don’t attack someone who is trying to do what is best for their child, by nourishing them as nature intended them too.

Lets get a little perspective on our first world issues and recognise that this is not a real problem. Real problems unfortunately do exist, parents neglecting and abusing kids, children getting sick and going hungry. The age at which a child weans is not an issue that needs our concern.

If you don’t want to look, don’t. Turn your head away, put a blanket over your head, our perhaps go and eat your lunch in the toilet. Just a suggestion.

One click is all it takes!