When I was working at the bank, I had a co-worker who would say something was inappropriate if it was even the slightest bit dirty or unprofessional. I always got a chuckle out of the way she'd say "INAPPROPRIATE"! And that's the voice I imagined in my head when I saw the latest cover of Time Magazine.

"INAPPROPRIATE!"

I haven't read the article myself, but the cover alone is worth talking about. It's an attractive 26 year old woman breast feeding her three year old son. And here are the questions it raises for me:

1. Why is a 26 year old woman breast feeding her three year old son?

2. Why is this displayed on the cover of a reputable magazine?

3. 'Are You Mom Enough?'

4. People still read magazines?

Each day on the BIG Afternoon Show we post a question: something interesting which we hope you will discuss and talk about with your family. This proved to be one of those. Many of the people said it was "gross" or it was "time to cut the cord." One person even mentioned the child would one day need therapy.

Everyone has an opinion. And everyone has facts they can back up with scientific evidence. But for every person who says this is disgusting, there are people who say a child should be eligible to breast feed until they are six years old.

I guess this is something we trust a mother to know what is best for her child. And who are we to criticize? I know who I am: a person who thinks breastfeeding this late is absolutely nuts.

One of the scariest things about being a father is the fact that one day this child of mine will want to start dating. And just the thought of that makes me uneasy; just as I'm sure it made my parents uneasy to see me dating. And trust me, teenage Jamie Worthington was quite the ladies man.

1998 Jamie Worthington was very handsome.

The rule in our house was as soon as you had your drivers license, you were able to start dating. Sure, we went on group dates earlier, but nothing ever really materialized from them. Apparently in a group, the young women realized everyone else was a catch.

The way I look at it, if you're able to drive, you're able to 'go steady'. I like the fact there are laws for certain age groups: at 14 you can get a learner's permit, at 16 a drivers license and at 18 you can drink and smoke. I think having these check points give kids something to look forward to.

I assume at 14 you can start being interested in someone. At 16 you can date and at 18 you can get married for all I care.

"Then that's what I'll do, smart guy!"

I'm in trouble, aren't I?

My wife and I saw 'The Hunger Games over the weekend. I thought it was a great piece of cinema, despite my motion sickness kicking in a few times. One thing I didn't like was the 9 year old girl sitting in front of me.

I'm not saying the girl was misbehaving. I'm not saying it's any of my business what a parent does to their child. But it did raise some questions in my mind about the movie rating system.

'The Hunger Games' is rated 14A in Canada, meaning persons under the age of 14 must be accompanied by an adult. If this is the case, what is a 9 year old doing there? The 14A rating is a step above the PG rating and one below the 18A. So it's somewhere in the middle. This is what makes it such a great topic of debate. And this is where my opinion may not be the most popular:

I don't believe a child under the age of 14, accompanied or not, should see a movie with a 14A rating. And I know what you're thinking...

Sounds a little harsh, I know. Just like I don't think anyone under the age of 18 should see an 18A movie. And I look at it in the same way we are governed by other things in life. No one under the age of 14 can get a learner's permit. It doesn't matter how mature they are. 14 is the limit. The same as a drivers license at 16. The same as being able to vote or buy a porno at 18. These limits are set by experts; experts who know more than we do.

I don't think it's appropriate for anyone under 12 to babysit just like I don't think it's appropriate for kids under 18 to smoke.

Some people mentioned children becoming desensitized to graphic violence from video games and others mention a parent should be able to do what they want with their kids, including take them to a movie. I agree. But these are things that need to happen within the walls of your own home. If you let you child drink when under the age at home, that's on you. If you want to leave your kids at home with a pre-teen, that's your call. But in a public place, rules need to be enforced. I look forward to your letters.

It seems like the new internet fad is regular people like you (I would include me but my mom says there's nothing regular about me) posting a message to a celebrity, inviting them to a function. Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis are just a few. Enter: Taylor Swift.

Depending on who you talk to, there are two versions of Taylor Swift: the Taylor Swift who is wholesome and down to earth, and the Taylor Swift who is winning too many awards and getting too big for her britches.

There was a Facebook page created for 18 year old Kevin McGuire, asking Taylor Swift to accompany him to his prom in New Jersey. Unfortunately, she declined.

"Kevin, I'm so sorry but I won't be able to make it to your prom."

Understandable, right? She's a huge, Grammy award winning star and probably has better things to do than spend a weekend in New Jersey. Sorry, New Jersey. But just when we think all is lost, she proposes an alternative:

But I was wondering, the ACM Awards are coming up.. Would you be my date?

Love, Taylor

 

I suppose I've always been a Taylor Swift fan. She's always been a positive role model for the millions of young women who are looking up to someone who isn't trashy or flaunts too much skin. Hearing this story makes me a bigger fan, not only of her music, but her as a person, an individual and a daughter of parents who raised her right.

You can currently hear Taylor Swift as the voice of Audrey in 'Dr Seuss' The Lorax' and purchase her three albums, 'Taylor Swift', 'Fearless' and 'Speak Now' wherever you leagally obtain your music.