Mum asked to stop breastfeeding a TWO YEAR OLD in shoe shop.

But why should we? Yes we can (and do) use words, cuddles, a million other things. But we can also breastfeed. So why shouldn't we do that sometimes if we want to?

It’s a 2 year old ! The majority of 2 year olds are not constantly round their mother! The majority of 2 year olds are not nutritionally dependant only on breast milk ! No 2 year old should be needing to be fed to sleep at this age!

Breast-feeding threads always go feral.

Feel free to contradict me by giving a valid reason.

@Notadame Well I’m glad you are a mind reader.

Except that you and the others on this thread are perfectly happy for hugs and other distractions to be offered as comfort, but not a breast. You know exactly why that is and it isn't for any of the "reasons" you've stated.

again, it’s not about BF ,it’s about whether there is a developmental stage at which that child starts to learn that their needs aren’t met immediately or that their needs can be met other than via BF…or do you think a child should have automatic rights to its mums body whenever and wherever? This is mumsnet you know, it’s full of opinions. People ( and health professionals) express opinions all the time about women who can’t or chose not to BF .

Breastfeeding and a dummy are not even remotely comparable.

Your breasts are there for the sole purpose of comforting and nurturing your child. That is the biological reason you have them. A dummy is a man made object.

What if I distracted them with a toy or my keys? I wouldn't do that to an adult, would I? So how's that different from breastfeeding?

Why are you assuming it's on demand?

It could easily bethe 2yo usually has lunch at that time but the shopping took longer so the mum bf to tide them over till they got home.

Or the 2yo was teething and needed comfort.

Or nap time and struggling to settle with the noise and distractions in a shop.

Or had wanted milk 10/20 mins ago and mum had said wait several times already but realised it was going to take a while in the shop so decided that was the best time.

There is no reason to assume 'on demand' other than your own prejudice.

When really the debate should be why do people think it's acceptable to have an opinion on how long mothers choose to breastfeed

as I said before , with an older child who is upset then I see automatic BF as shutting that child down , ie, the equivalent of putting a dummy in their mouth. If your child has a tantrum would you BF them? I don’t see hugs as in any way equivalent because we hug people throughout the whole lifecycle…we move away from BF being used to comfort as a child gets older.

Britain has the lowest breastfeeding rate in the world due to attitudes like yours. Why not support any mother who wishes to breastfeed her child? I'm glad that the law is on her side. And yes the World Health Organisation suggests all children should be breastfed until TWO YEARS OLD and beyond

https://victorianweb.org/science/maternity/uvic/5.html

'Across the course of the nineteenth century, then, attitudes towards and trends around infant feeding shifted in response to some of these varying factors. In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, it became “fashionable” for upper-class mothers to nurse their own children—a trend alluded to in Maria Edgeworth’s novel, Belinda (1801), in which the character of Lady Delacour reflects on her own experience to the eponymous heroine: “It was the fashion at this time for fine mothers to suckle their own children— so much the worse for the poor brats.—Fine nurses never make fine children” (85). This attitude was later echoed by Queen Victoria, who preferred to hire wet nurses to feed her nine children. In the early Victorian period, an expanding market for advice literature for mothers contributed to increasing pressure on mothers to nurse their own children, but the developing market for infant formula (often comprised of some questionable and sometimes dangerous ingredients) exerted a competing pressure, hence Victorian mothers had to negotiate these various attitudes, trends, and practices in relation to the feeding of their children. In the increasingly public debates surrounding this issue, we find the origins of the often-vexed discussions over infant feeding which continue today.'

I thought she was always up for a bit of a romp and a tickle! But then maybe that was the problem: other plans for them!😂

It was, but Victoria despised it, and the country often tended to follow her lead.

Extended breastfeeding also, as is demonstrated by the attitudes on this thread, is widely assumed to be solely the preserve of very hippy, lentil weavy parents who call their children Ocean, dress them in tie dye and never say no to them.

https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a25835359/queen-victoria-children/

'She was also deeply critical of breastfeeding, considering it a "ruin" to intelligent young women—so much so, in fact, that she wrote in her diary upon finding out that her own daughters had chosen to breastfeed, "It makes my hair stand on end that my daughters have turned into cows."'

Actually I think even in Victorian times breastfeeding was acceptable for upper class mothers - at least before bottle hygiene improved.

There were wet nurses of course, but I think that was more about freeing women up for other social duties than because of boob-fear.

But if you see me hug my two year old I assume you aren't sat there thinking that must be the only way I know how to comfort them? But yet if you saw me breastfeed them, that's the assumption you'd make - can you really not see how illogical that is?

I think because it seems to indicate a lack of other parenting skills? Again, I wouldn’t ever comment as I don’t have a problem with people BF but I am questioning why it is needed for a 2 year old in the UK. I have lived and worked in 3 other countries I think all of which have higher BF rates than the UK ( not hard I know) and I honestly can’t remember ever seeing anyone BF an older child in public.

Formula companies did it on purpose, over many, many years.

I suppose ideas about class also had something to do with it - Queen Victoria has a lot to answer for.

I guess it isn't the "only option." But what people are saying is why shouldn't it be "an" option.

I have only ever seen it done discreetly that I can think of. People are acting as if the mother peels of her blouse and struts round the public place with her breasts on display, waving her nipple and shouting "latch on!!". In reality it is really just the back of a little head that gets seen.

But what I'm asking, which no one seems to be able to answer, is WHY the other forms of comfort you and others have listed are more appropriate than a breastfeed? It is fine to hug my 2 year old in public but not to breastfeed them is what you're saying, isn't it?

thats totally fair I am digressing but it’s about the concept that certain people seem to have to meet that child’s needs immediately , that they think it’s harmful for a child to get upset or cry and not being able to say no or wait …. I associate it with younger parents who are following the gentle parenting ideas without understanding the actual parenting part. So I would argue a 2 year old, who isn’t reliant on BF for nutrition , and who is also at the stage of developing verbal language ,emotions and independence away from their mother, should be capable of being comforted in other ways and that BF on demand isn’t necessary at this age. I dont think that’s a revolutionary concept ..obviously many people believe otherwise ( poll is currently 55 to 45 %) but if we repeated that poll considering a BF child at age 3 or at age 4 you would likely see that percentage change, I highly doubt many would believe a child of school age should still be BF on demand . So ultimately the debate is at what age is it considered the norm to stop BF on demand .

What's this got to do with extended breastfeeding?