2000
Subj : Re: This Train Just Went Splat!
To   : alt.tv.er
From : MauiJNP
Date : Sat Sep 24 2005 20:23:00

From Newsgroup: alt.tv.er

>
>> 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.'
>

actually, I meant what I said (since I would never argue against the 
nutritousness of breastmilk because I am aware of how nutritious it is). 
The reason I said there are no healthy reasons (as is 
emotional/psychological health) is because I believe that it crosses 
boundaries issues (among other things) when a child who is more or less old 
enough to know what's going on to breastfeed straight from the breast 
(whether in private or public).


> Breastmilk is a nutritious, healthful food for babies over the age of
> one ... and over the age of 2.  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.
>
> 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?

since I believe that breastfeeding is harmful to the older child's 
emotional/psychological health, if I would ever decide that my older child 
needs the nutritional value of the breastmilk, then I won't mind the 
sarifice of having to pump and store the milk.  after all, making sacrifices 
is a large part of a parents job.  again, this is based solely on my opinion 
and others who don't share it would not see the need to come up with another 
way to meet the same end (which is the child getting the nutritional milk 
without worrying about the controversy of breastfeeding older children)


>>(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.
>

its a basic fact that children can't breastfeed forever.  Why not make it 
easier for child by replacing breastfeeding (for comfort reasons) with 
another long-term socially acceptable coping mechanism.  the sooner they 
learn it, the better they can cope with many of life's messy situations. 
For example, instead of breastfeeding, the child can get comfort from being 
held, getting a hug or kiss, sitting next to the mom, talking with the mom, 
holding hands, singing, reading, drawing and many food.  If you are using 
breastfeeding for this reason (comfort) what will happen when they need to 
be comforted and mom's not around?  Avoiding long term problems is what I am 
trying to say if this isn't clear.


> 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
> ....).
>
>
>  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?
>

Whether parents like it or not, children grow up and need them less.  To 
continue breastfeeding for someone who is 2,3,4,5,6 or even later just 
because it is a source of comfort and connection does not make it right. 
Would it be right to not potty train a child and still be changing diapers 
at 10, 11, 12 just because it keeps the child connected to the adult to be 
needed?  Would it be right for a 15 or 16 year old to share their parents 
bed just because it is comforting to both parties?  Do you think these 
situations cross any boundaries?  To me, they all lead down the road of 
unhealthy emotional/psychological problems (not saying all kids who do these 
things will definately have problems but why take the chance and give the 
kid more to battle).  for example, a friend of mine has a younger sister who 
is 16 and still sleeps in her parents bed.  she never had her own room (she 
either slept with her parents or shared a bed with my friend until my friend 
moved out of her parents home) so now she is left unable to cope with having 
to be in a bedroom by herself.  the relationship between her and her family 
is struggling because of it (her parents fight with her all the time because 
they are frustrated with her in their bed) and a caseworker at children and 
youth is having serious problems with the boundaries issues involved.


>
> 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?  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.
>

I don't think it is disgusting, in fact, when I have kids, they will 
probably be breastfed for the first few months.  I do think that when a 
child is old enough to understand what they are doing, it is time to worry 
about boundaries and if continuing to breastfeed is really the best thing 
for the child.


> 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. (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.)
>

well, I am not one of those, for the record.  I think that everything has an 
expiration date.  After all, kids can't be kids forever, they do grow up 
even though some parents don't like to admit it.  I think bottles should be 
phased out by 1 or so and a pacifier shortly after that but again, that's 
just me and I will be able to provide other alternatives to my children 
instead of using those objects for comfort.


>
> 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 bo
1507
undaries 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. (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.  The usual pattern once the child is well into
> todderhood is 'don't offer -- don't refuse.'
>


When my nephews were younger, they would sometimes come in the shower with 
me.  Shortly before age 2, it was decided that switching to a "don't offer, 
don't refuse" policy would help the child to learn that it will not always 
be appropriate to come in the shower with me.  When either of them asked, 
they were mostly told yes but sometimes told no if it was unconvenient at 
the time.  Shortly after he was 2, the answer was always no because "he was 
getting to be big boy and didn't need so much help washing."  Once, when one 
of my nephews was 4, he asked me to please join him in the tub (he usually 
shares with his younger brother but he had gone to bed already).  I told him 
no and compromised by throwing the dog (toy poodle) in to splash around with 
him.  It didn't do him any harm to be told no and he had lots of fun without 
me.


>
>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.)
> 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 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. All children are biologically programmed to 'want to' grow up.
> 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.)
>
> And, FWIW, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends breastfeeding
> "For a minimum of one year, and as long thereafter and mother and child
> wish." 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.)
>
> It's rare to see older children breastfed in OUR society.  That's for
> two reasons. 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.  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.
>
> (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.])
>
>
> 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.
>
> 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!)
>

my friend who's brother was breastfed till he was 6 or so (not sure how long 
but he was in school so that's the best guess I have for age) was also a 
Certified Lactation Educator and almost everytime we had to do a research 
paper in school my friend chose this very topic of prolonged breastfeeding 
and its benefits (I think she admitted once that she was breastfed until she 
was 4 or 5 and only was stopped because her sister came along and the mom 
couldn't do the two at once).

.

0