When does extended breastfeeding become weird....

toomanyshoesfortwofeet

splishsplash wrote: »

I think breastfeeding becomes 'weird' when the child has moved on from the dependent stage of babyhood to where we naturally begin to encourage independence instead, so maybe 3 years old? It seems counter-intuitive to breastfeed at this stage of development. A bit like making sure your child crawls for a while every day even though it runs and jumps quite happily the rest of the time.

Could you tell me what you think it is about breastfeeding specifically that runs counter to independence? For me, it's not like making a child crawl at all.

I was unable to breastfeed my ds1 and after 8 weeks gave up and switched to the bottle. I think that ds1 and ds2 have followed a very similar pattern of steps toward independence. From my experience, I can say breastfeeding has not hindered a move to independence.

I'm pretty sure that most of the parenting groups, here I'm thinking of Continuum parents and attachment parents, of which I am neither, that encourage extended breastfeeding put independence at the very centre of their parenting philosophy.

POPPYOSCAR

meher wrote: »

true, what she says is worse - she's saying that the mother should be dictated to
that's just sophistry but I don' understand what you're trying to tell poet, the point of your post

and even before you finished that sentence you went on to 'reading into posts' by the looks:

The point of my post is quite clear. I felt Poet was reading more into some posts than was being actually said.

Regarding my response to lostinrates, if you read my post I am asking her a question, therefore I am not assuming she has said something else, just asking her a question in relation to the debate.

mountainofdebt

Well when I was expecting Junior and waiting to go and have my scan I had, what would become the breast-feeding police try to force their beliefs on to me and was quite shocked when I told her I had no intention of bf Junior. Then she smiled that knowing smile as if to say give it time, you'll change your mind.

On our next encounter I was in no mood to be bullied into something I didn't want to do and her treatment of a fellow patient made me even more determined to stick two fingers up and no end of false smiles worked.

I made sure Junior was ( and still is) nutritionally health as well as healthly in other respects.

Personally I'm all for a live and let live policy on life but bf seems to be one of those issues where you get some women acting all holier than thou over than others.

I wish those sort of women would get off their high horse and let other women live their lives as they want to.

skintchick

splishsplash wrote: »

I know the WHO advocates exclusive breastfeeding for six months, and to be included as part of baby's diet for two years, but I'm unclear where the evidence lies for any added benefits from six months on? Would anyone have links to anything that might inform me?

.

Yes I do but I'm on my iPod and can't get them right now as. They're on my laptop so will do it tomorrow.

splishsplash

toomanyshoesfortwofeet wrote: »

Could you tell me what you think it is about breastfeeding specifically that runs counter to independence? For me, it's not like making a child crawl at all.

I was unable to breastfeed my ds1 and after 8 weeks gave up and switched to the bottle. I think that ds1 and ds2 have followed a very similar pattern of steps toward independence. From my experience, I can say breastfeeding has not hindered a move to independence.

I'm pretty sure that most of the parenting groups, here I'm thinking of Continuum parents and attachment parents, of which I am neither, that encourage extended breastfeeding put independence at the very centre of their parenting philosophy.

My comments were not aimed at you, and I would support your decision to breastfeed for as long as you are happy to.
My answer referred to the OP's question about when I would find extended bf becoming weird. I used the word counterintuitive because to me, it would feel weird to continue to breastfeed at a time when I was encouraging my child to develop language, social and reading skills.
At the age of three, my children were huge chatterboxes. Bedtime stories often involved fantastic, fanciful sagas that evolved night after night, with input from all of us. By then, they were following words when I would read to them, recognizing words and pictures to follow the story on the pages. Nightime, when the children were bathed and relaxed was a time for big chats for aaages. (Yes, I know I was being played like a violin, but it was a lovely, satisfying, happy time of the day).
To then turn around and put a three year old to the breast would feel like I was holding the child back, reverting to a stage we had already passed through, and even hindering the progression to the next stage - the endless yammering and fascinating stories they had to tell me. It would feel wrong to me.

I personally would not be the biggest fan of either attachment parenting or the continuum-concept of parenting.
I would be interested to see why the groups you mention advocate extended breastfeeding, or, come to think of it, what they mean by extended feeding?

conradmum

splishsplash wrote: »

My comments were not aimed at you, and I would support your decision to breastfeed for as long as you are happy to.
My answer referred to the OP's question about when I would find extended bf becoming weird. I used the word counterintuitive because to me, it would feel weird to continue to breastfeed at a time when I was encouraging my child to develop language, social and reading skills.
At the age of three, my children were huge chatterboxes. Bedtime stories often involved fantastic, fanciful sagas that evolved night after night, with input from all of us. By then, they were following words when I would read to them, recognizing words and pictures to follow the story on the pages. Nightime, when the children were bathed and relaxed was a time for big chats for aaages. (Yes, I know I was being played like a violin, but it was a lovely, satisfying, happy time of the day).
To then turn around and put a three year old to the breast would feel like I was holding the child back, reverting to a stage we had already passed through, and even hindering the progression to the next stage - the endless yammering and fascinating stories they had to tell me. It would feel wrong to me.

I personally would not be the biggest fan of either attachment parenting or the continuum-concept of parenting.
I would be interested to see why the groups you mention advocate extended breastfeeding, or, come to think of it, what they mean by extended feeding?

I think the reason behind your feelings is because, as another poster said a few pages back (not in reply to you) that you associate breastfeeding with babies only. There's no reason in biology or human development that indicates that breastfeeding should stop when a child starts crawling or walking or talking. In most other countries this isn't the case.

In our culture we still have a bit of a hangover from Victorian and Behaviourist values that children need to be pushed into giving things up as soon as possible to make them 'mature' and 'independent'. There's no evidence to suggest that children who breastfeed into toddlerhood and even childhood are any less independent than other children. It's just an unfortunate assumption.

I can see it might make sense with bottle-feeding to encourage a child to give it up because this can affect the growth of the mouth, the same as with sucking on dummies and thumbs. But breasts don't have the same effect.

toomanyshoesfortwofeet

splishsplash wrote: »

My comments were not aimed at you, and I would support your decision to breastfeed for as long as you are happy to.
My answer referred to the OP's question about when I would find extended bf becoming weird. I used the word counterintuitive because to me, it would feel weird to continue to breastfeed at a time when I was encouraging my child to develop language, social and reading skills.
At the age of three, my children were huge chatterboxes. Bedtime stories often involved fantastic, fanciful sagas that evolved night after night, with input from all of us. By then, they were following words when I would read to them, recognizing words and pictures to follow the story on the pages. Nightime, when the children were bathed and relaxed was a time for big chats for aaages. (Yes, I know I was being played like a violin, but it was a lovely, satisfying, happy time of the day).
To then turn around and put a three year old to the breast would feel like I was holding the child back, reverting to a stage we had already passed through, and even hindering the progression to the next stage - the endless yammering and fascinating stories they had to tell me. It would feel wrong to me.

I personally would not be the biggest fan of either attachment parenting or the continuum-concept of parenting.
I would be interested to see why the groups you mention advocate extended breastfeeding, or, come to think of it, what they mean by extended feeding?

Thanks for replying. I didn't take your post personally I was just interested to find out why you felt that way. I get that you are saying that this is how you personally feel and that you're not suggesting that everyone should feel that way.

I think I was dithering around the point that conradmum has just made and I couldn't put it better.

I'm not well read in either continuum parenting or attachment parenting but I think (but, I maybe wrong) that extended breastfeeding is encouraged because they consider it a powerful bonding activity and they work from the assumption that true independence is achieved through secure attachment. (And too add, I don't personally believe that bottle feeding limits good attachment).

lostinrates

conradmum wrote: »

I think the reason behind your feelings is because, as another poster said a few pages back (not in reply to you) that you associate breastfeeding with babies only. There's no reason in biology or human development that indicates that breastfeeding should stop when a child starts crawling or walking or talking. In most other countries this isn't the .

I spoke, some pages back, about a mare who I left the foal on, and didn't wean. While it was natural that she didn't wean, it was not 'normal'. Without human interference in the wild the mare would have become pregnant again, normally the next year, and wean the foal shortlybefore the next foal was born.

Now, I don't know about peopl, and I just asked my husband who studied anthropology some years ago and he tells me he doesn't know either, but it seems likely that early humans would have produced babies at much the same rate...I.e. as often as possible. You can co feed two, but much longer than that would be unlikely to be o
Timbal for mother or the younger babies I would have thought?


Incidentally, I don't think nature is always right....but if that is the bench mark we use, and I string,y believe people are right to hold that as important, we have to remember why we might have been like that.

conradmum

lostinrates wrote: »

I spoke, some pages back, about a mare who I left the foal on, and didn't wean. While it was natural that she didn't wean, it was not 'normal'. Without human interference in the wild the mare would have become pregnant again, normally the next year, and wean the foal shortlybefore the next foal was born.

Now, I don't know about peopl, and I just asked my husband who studied anthropology some years ago and he tells me he doesn't know either, but it seems likely that early humans would have produced babies at much the same rate...I.e. as often as possible. You can co feed two, but much longer than that would be unlikely to be o
Timbal for mother or the younger babies I would have thought?


Incidentally, I don't think nature is always right....but if that is the bench mark we use, and I string,y believe people are right to hold that as important, we have to remember why we might have been like that.

In hunter gatherer societies children are normally spaced by about 3 - 4 years, and hunter gatherer societies are supposed to be how humans lived for millions of years.

However I wasn't saying that, nor that it's 'natural' to extend breastfeeding into childhood. I was just answering your query as to why you felt strange about it. I think it's because it isn't commonplace in our society and we have cultural baggage about the idea, for all sorts of reasons. We're unusual in that compared to the rest of the world, which is why I think it's a cultural phenomenon, rather than extended breastfeeding actually being intrinsically weird. There's no biological reason we should stop feeding at babyhood either.

Sorry I don't understand your last sentence.

splishsplash

conradmum wrote: »

I think the reason behind your feelings is because, as another poster said a few pages back (not in reply to you) that you associate breastfeeding with babies only. There's no reason in biology or human development that indicates that breastfeeding should stop when a child starts crawling or walking or talking. In most other countries this isn't the case.

In our culture we still have a bit of a hangover from Victorian and Behaviourist values that children need to be pushed into giving things up as soon as possible to make them 'mature' and 'independent'. There's no evidence to suggest that children who breastfeed into toddlerhood and even childhood are any less independent than other children. It's just an unfortunate assumption.

I can see it might make sense with bottle-feeding to encourage a child to give it up because this can affect the growth of the mouth, the same as with sucking on dummies and thumbs. But breasts don't have the same effect.

I associate breastfeeding with babies and toddlers, not three or four year old children for the reasons I've already outlined, yes.
I really want to make it clear though, that I have no problem in the wide earthly world with other women who choose to continue breastfeeding far beyond my instinctive cut-off point.

I'm curious regarding the bit I've bolded - I've given what are my own personal reasons for stopping - but I'm not sure what the reasons for continuing are?
I think that's why I think it's such a personal thing - what you see as 'pushing' toward independence, I see as not holding back, facilitating, encouraging. I see extended breastfeeding (age 3+) as keeping the child at a passive, dependent, managed stage that they have naturally outgrown.

To clarify: when I say I naturally began to encourage my children toward independence at age 3-4, I meant that I fostered their interest in talking, roleplay, making friends and all the natural developmental milestones that happen around that age when a children starts becoming interested in other people apart from parents and siblings.