2000
Subj : Re: This Train Just Went Splat!
To   : alt.tv.er
From : Dropping The Helicopter
Date : Sat Sep 24 2005 22:35:12

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er

npardue@indiana.edu wrote:
> MauiJNP wrote:
>>>  It was, unfortunately, another
>>> example of the show playing breastfeeding for laughs.  Some kids that
>>> old DO still breastfeed, and there's nothing wrong with it.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is.
>>>
>>> Do tell?  What's wrong with it?
>>>
>>
>> This is just me and I don't want to start a big fight or anything, but I
>> think there is definately something wrong with breastfeeding a child over
>> the age of 2 (and even thats a stretch for me to agree with as I believe
>> breastfeeding should never last longer than 1 year).   Correct me if I am
>> wrong and maybe I may change my opinion but as I see it now, there is no
>> healthy reasons to breastfeed a child past the age or 2.
> 
> I'm assuming this is a typo and you mean 'no health reasons.'
> Breastmilk is a nutritious, healthful food for babies over the age of
> one ... and over the age of 2.

And over the age of 3.  And 6.  And 12.  And 35.  And 60.

>  It is easily digested and contains many
> vitamins and minerals. Unlike cows milk, children are never allgeric to
> it. After about 6-12 months it is no longer sufficient as a sole source
> of nutrition for a child, but it doesn't lose its value.
> 

But loses its point.  When the child can a) eat "grown-up food" and b) 
regardless of how much mother's milk he drinks it won't sustain him, 
it's time for the child to be weaned.

>  If you think that
>> the child needs breastmilk for nutritional value, pump it and give it to
>> them in a cup.
> 
> Why would a mother want to go to the comparative hassle of pumping and
> storing milk when it's so easily available straight from the source?
> Why make more work for yourself if you don't have to?

Here we can agree.  Why go to extra hassle to do something that is upon 
inspection simply wrong?

> (Also, for
> toddlers and preschoolers, a large part of the benefit of breastmilk
> (more on this later) is the comfort aspect. They don't get that
> drinking from a cup.
> 

Yeah, neither do I.  Does that mean I should go back to breastfeeding?

>  If you argue that you are too poor to buy them real milk,
>> pump and give it to them in a cup.
> 
> Ummm... breastmilk IS real milk. It is real human milk.  The milk we
> buy at the store is real milk from cows (or goats, or soybeans, or rice
> ....).
> 

Now come on Naomi, we didn't need to know that.  Icky!

> 
>   If you argue that it strengthens the
>> bond between mother and child, there are plently of other ways to form or
>> maintain a strong bond between mother and child that doesn't involve
>> breastfeeding.  Many many fathers have very strong bonds with their children
>> without breastfeeding.
> 
> Absolutely. No arguemnt there.  There are many ways parents bond with
> their children.  Mothers who never breastfeed bond with their children.
> Fathers bond with their children.  But the fact that there are many
> options available doesn't make any one of them automatically wrong.  If
> a mother and child find that breastfeeding is a valuable source of
> comfort and connection for them, there is no reason to stop just
> because the child has passed some arbitrary birthday. (I mean, if
> breastfeeding is fine for a baby who is 11 months, 3 weeks, why is it
> suddenly unnessessary one week later? If it's acceptable for a toddler
> of 1 year, 11 months, 3 weeks, why is it suddenly 'definitely wrong'
> one week later?
> 

Two things that we can all unquestionably agree on:

1.  Breastfeeding an newborn infant is 100% natural and fine and anybody 
who thinks it is somehow inherently "wrong" is not thinking properly. 
(any concerns about "breastfeeding exhibitionism" not withstanding).
2.  Breastfeeding a 35-year-old is unnatural and wrong and anybody who 
thinks it is somehow inherently "ok" is not thinking properly.

Now, the third thing we can agree on is that somewhere between the ages 
of 0 and 35, the child must be weaned from the mother's teat.

The fourth thing we can agree on is that somewhere between 0 and 35, 
breastfeeding becomes 'definitely wrong'.

>  The act of breastfeeding an infant is more
>> reasonable to me because they are helpless and need constant help and
>> attention to sustain their lives.
> 
> 
> I guess I'm not following this argument.  Why  is it ok for helpless
> infants, but not for older kids?

As you of course know, infants have been breastfed since before humans 
even existed.  That's kinda how things were set up, at least for us 
mammals.  As we all agreed upon above, nobody in their right mind 
questions it.

"Older kids".  How old?

>  Many helpless infants are also
> bottlefed. Maybe I'm misreading you, but what it SOUNDS like you are
> saying is, essentially, "I guess it's ok to breastfeed as long as the
> child is too young to understand what he's doing ... that it's really
> sort of disgusting but I guess there are enough health benefits to make
> it acceptable for a tiny baby." Please do correct me if I'm jumping to
> conclusions here.
> 

Naomi: At what age would you consider breastfeeding to be not ok?  Do 
you believe it would be totally fine for both mother and child alike if 
said child was 18 years old and still breastfeeding?

>  A 2 year old can talk, play, drink out of
>> a cup, feed themselves, eat solid foods, eat a variety of foods without
>> getting sick, etc.
> 
> Very true.  But they can also breastfeed, and sometimes do.

I can also breastfeed, and I'm old enough to have my own breastfeeding 
child!  Should I ask my mom if I can have the teat back?  Perhaps the 
real question here is not "how old", but rather "How many generations 
should breastfeeding span?"

> (Also worth
> noting that many people who find it 'wrong' for a toddler to breastfeed
> see nothing wrong with a toddler drinking from a bottle or sucking on a
> pacifier.)
> 

We call it "growing up".  We also see nothing wrong with a young child 
crawling around on all fours because he can't walk.  Conversely, we 
throw 40-year-olds who choose to do so even though they're fully able to 
walk into the nearest loony bin.

>  When I was younger, my friend had a younger brother who
>> was breastfed till he was 6 or so.  Even if we were out in public, he would
>> ask for it and she would just sit down, and he would stick his whole head up
>> her shirt.  In my opinion, breastfeeding will leave a child with no concept
>> of healthy boundaries and will cause problems in the future.  But like I
>> said, that's just my opinion.  Feel free to try and change it by offering
>> other viewpoints for me to consider if you wish.
> 
> And that is a VERY unusual situation.

But that's what we're talking about here.

> (Just as the scenario on the show
> was.) IRL, mothers  often choose to do what is called 'child-led
> weaning.' Meaning that,  they continue to breastfeed as long as the
> child seems to want it.

So in other words, they fob off that particular parental responsibility 
to the child.  Nice.

>  The usual pattern once the child is well into
> todderhood is 'don't offer -- don't refuse.'

The military has something similar to that: "Don't ask -- don't tell."

> So if the child asks to
> nurse, you let them, but you don't necessarily offer it. (Though there
> will certainly be times [like at bedtime or naptime] where it's assumed
> by both parties that nursing happens.)

Until what age and/or stage of development?  Or does this "child-led 
parenting" actually hinder development, so the only thing you have to go 
on is age?  In that case, I rephrase the question: Until what age?

> Now, having said that, MOST mothers who opt for child-led weaning DO
> understand and set bounderies. If the setting is not suitable for
> nursing, they tell the child no, and offer some more acceptable
> replacement. (A snack, a drink, a hug, whatever.)
> With child-led weaning, all child 
15a6
DO eventually wean themselves. Most
> do so somewhere between around 18 months and 3 years.  A few will
> continue to 4, a very few to 5 or 6. It's not wrong. It's not sick.
> It's not harmful. It's just a different pattern of development for that
> child.

It ain't right to have a six year old hanging off your boob.  We hold 
that truth to be self-evident.

> All children are biologically programmed to 'want to' grow up.

I wasn't.  I still wish I didn't have to do all these grown-up things. 
Too much hassle.  What I wouldn't give to rewind back to a time when I 
had no idea what was going on, didn't even have to locomote myself let 
alone feed myself, had no bills to pay, didn't have to work, slept all 
the time, loaded my diaper whenever I felt like it and somebody just 
cleaned up the mess, and it was all good.  Bet I'm not the only one.

Even so, I have no desire to be sucking on my mom's teat at my age, even 
though apparently there's "nothing wrong with it" and it's "not sick."

> Some just do it at different rates. In most 'natural' societies,
> children breastfeed well past their first birthdays. (And I know of
> plenty of kids that age in our own society who suck their thumbs or
> sleep with blankies or teddies.  It's really no different in
> principle.)
> 

It is very different in principle, come on Naomi.

> And, FWIW, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding
> "For a minimum of one year, and as long thereafter and mother and child
> wish."

Hopefully there's a subparagraph stating something to the effect of, 
"NOTE: If the mother continues to wish after the child gets his or her 
driver's license, consult a psychiatric professional."

> The World Health Organization recommends it "to 2 years and
> beyond." There are no health problems connected with extended
> breastfeeding for mother and baby (assuming that mom is eating a
> relatively balanced diet, and baby is getting addition foods after 6-12
> months.) And for mom there are clear health benefits. (Reduced risk of
> breast cancer being among the most important.)
> 

Oh I'm sure there are no physical health problems with it.  Well, I 
would think that once the child gets his permanent teeth that nipple 
might start getting pretty raw, but I'm not a doctor.  But the 
psychological effects on the child can be nothing but crippling.  Of 
course, the mother already has large-bore problems anyway, so for her 
it's probably a wash.

> It's rare to see older children breastfed in OUR society.  That's for
> two reasons.

First, because OUR society is, by definition, wrong and evil on every 
matter, and the way any other society operates, or is assumed to 
operate, is automatically superior to ours.

Right?

> First, most mothers do choose to wean their
> children.(Often well before their first birthday.) And second, most
> children who do breastfeed past infancy DON'T tend to do it out in
> public.

"Hide in the hiding place where no one ever goes..."

>  Their mothers DO set boundaries. (And if they do it out in
> public, they can usually be pretty subtle about it. Expeienced nursing
> moms can breastfeed without making a spectacle of it.
> 

"It's a little secret, just the Robinsons' affair..."

> (As for the scenario on the show, what would have been more realistic
> [though not as 'funny' ...] would have been for mom to go up to a nurse
> and say that her son is really stressed from sitting in the crowded,
> noisy waiting room. Is there somewhere quiet they could wait? And then
> they get directed to the family room where the boy, who IS probably
> stressed and tired from being in the crowded, noisy waiting room, calms
> himself down by nursing. [Since, at that age, that's usually what it's
> all about.])
> 

Right, that wouldn't have been nearly as funny.  But it would have been 
extremely disturbing, so they could have called in the Social Worker Of 
The Week ("SWOTW") and made an actual subplot out of it.  Then Carter 
would come back and bone the SWOTW.

> 
> FWIW, I breastfed for 14 months. At that point I chose to wean, and
> Shaina weaned easily. If she has not, I wouldn't have pushed it at that
> point. It's hard to say how long I would have chosen to continue if she
> continued to resist weaning. I can say, 'from the outside looking in'
> that I wouldn't feel comfortable breastfeeding a 4 or 5 or 6 year old
> child. But that doesn't mean it's wrong for a different mother/child
> pair.  And, who knows, if Shaina had been very attached to
> breastfeeding, maybe I would have found myself still nursing or 4 or 5
> or 6 and would have been fine with it.
> 

What about 7?  8?  10?  At what point would you have not been fine with 
it?  We both know there would be a point at which you would not be fine 
with it.  What is that point?

> Naomi
> (I've let my membership lapse, so I can no longer put here that I'm a
> Certified Lactation Educator, but the knowlege is still in my brain!)
> 

Pshht, come on, who here HASN'T been a Certified Lactation Educator! ;-)

Now if you'll all excuse me, I am going to go take a massive dump in my 
jeans.  Oh don't misunderstand, I'm fully continent and have working 
indoor plumbing, it's just so much more comforting for me to load my 
pants like I used to when I was a little baby.  There's nothing "wrong" 
or "sick" about it.  I just wish my mom was still willing to change me.

Game, set, and match.

.

0