to have laughed when my fil told my dh

[biddysmama]

that he should stop me from breastfeeding now as dd is too old? (shes 2,ds is 1 and im pg)

do people do what their husbands tell them to? ive got a mind of my own thanks very much

Pmsl at the stupidity and ignorance of didyousee's remarks! That must be one of the most ignorant posts I have ever read! I pity you and your way of thinking I really do. Thank God I see breasts for Their primary function, to feed my child and I am safe in the knowledge that my nearly two year old is still receiving life long benefits and comfort from bf.

God there are some ignorant idiots out there!

By the way didyousee - are you danny's sock puppet?

"I am safe in the knowledge that my nearly two year old is still receiving life long benefits and comfort from bf."
What utter, completeley unfounded claptrap.

didyou I am worried about you!

I also think you are on the wind-up.

Making healthy dietary choices for your child, giving them comfort and security - what's to object to in that?

A healthy, emotionally secure early childhood sets you up for life.

yeah ok didyousee, whatever you say love, (lets give the poor love a pat and another for her 'isshoooos' with the benefits of bf and her ignorance about them)

you have serious issues love

the stupidity of your rants makes me laugh all over again!

Sometimes posters post things that you disagree with, but you can see where they're coming from.

And then sometimes others post things that are so far removed from common sense that it really is quite funny! didyou - are you for real?

Didyousee may not be on the wind up. There are people like this person out there. The world is made up of all sorts of people.

Whatme worry - no, as I said I didnt see the program. My posts were purely based on your comments

"What also became clear is that the EBF thing is also wrapped up into the SAHM thing, so it's a twoferone emotive issue."

"And the women on the programme who were into EBF were exactly the sort I'd run a mile from."

I felt it a shame that, after you had read this thread with non hippy, non beardy types talking about natural term breastfeeding and you were coming aroudn to the fact that it isnt sick or freakish, you then watched the program off the telly which reaffirmed for you your prejudices prior to reading the thread. I apologise if I have misunderstood about your coments about running a mile from women who were into ebf. It may be that I would also run a mile from them too albeit not because they are natural term breasfeeders but just the type of people they are. Maybe that's what you meant to.

"too" not "to"

sheep and rita - unfortunately I bet didyousee is for real - you have to pity her for her ignorance about bf - she clearly has NO idea about the benefits of bf beyond a certain age or about how comforting it is for a child so just pity the poor poor love (and laugh too as she digs her hole even deeper everytime she rants about it)

poor love!

LOL

Didyousee, I'm interested in your position, can you point me to any scientific studies to support your supposition that BF at that age has no benefit? Thanks.

When I went with DS for my 6 week post partum checkup my doctor raised an eyebrow about breastfeeding and tried to make a joke about what his little girlfriends would say if they saw him having such a close relationship with his mother. So sad to see an attitude like that.

math

Shuckle - didyousee cannot point you to anything as she is talking crap!

Snakes it might keep her out of mischief though.

Doubt it shuckle! She is obviously very insecure and ignorant about bf so best leave her to her mutterings! Lol

"can you point me to any scientific studies to support your supposition that BF at that age has no benefit?"

But I can point you to a large scale study from a reputable Australian organisation which suggests that children breastfed beyond infancy have better mental health than their non-breastfed peers:

here

shuckleberry - I questioned the following quote: "I am safe in the knowledge that my nearly two year old is still receiving life long benefits and comfort from bf"
This is impossible to prove either way and the person who posted it knows it. At best, there might be some health benefits but there is evidence also to suggest that these may well be over-stated by the BF lobby.
As for the comfort thing, well there are plenty of other ways to comfort a two year old child. The need to keep breastfeeding is just perverse.
spudulika - saw your study. I dont buy it, sorry. It may well be that the parents who breastfeed betond 6 months are more likely to be hands on types - hence better mental health of their children IYSWIM.

"At best, there might be some health benefits"

98% of female doctors breastfeed their babies. I think that should tell you something about the beliefs about breastfeeding in the medical community.

"As for the comfort thing, well there are plenty of other ways to comfort a two year old child."

There are many ways to comfort a child. But breastfeeding is one of the most powerful. Anyway - you've still not given any sensible reasons why someone shouldn't.

"The need to keep breastfeeding is just perverse."

Well that's your opinion. You believe breastfeeding an older child is wrong, despite it being something that was very common in the past in the UK, and is very common in large swathes of the world today. It's also never been linked with any disadvantages for children or for mothers. The opposite in fact.

On the other hand not initiating breastfeeding at all is something that is a very, very recent development in terms of human history. It's associated with poorer health outcomes and higher rates of hospital admission for small babies.

Can you explain why a physiologically normal and well established practice, which has never been proven to be harmful, is seen by you as 'perverse', whereas a relatively new practice which exposes some babies to harm, is seen as both reasonable and socially acceptable?

"spudulika - saw your study. I dont buy it, sorry. It may well be that the parents who breastfeed betond 6 months are more likely to be hands on types - hence better mental health of their children IYSWIM."

So people who long term breastfeed are more likely to raise happy and well-adjusted children because positive parenting practices are more common among these groups? Yes, possibly. There is an argument that it's not breastfeeding that makes babies better adjusted and more intelligent. It's that more intelligent and better adjusted people are more likely to breastfeed for a significant length of time.

That's not particularly flattering to those people who choose not to breastfeed is it though?

And it's also the case that this study did attempt to control for parenting styles.

I think too many people are conflating "no breastfeeding" with "not EBF". I think it would be very useful to separate out the 6 month benefits from the longer BF ones.

I love that MN is such a enlightened forum - but then you always get the 'ewwww bf a 2yr old' types don't you.

It makes me laugh that people have an arbitrary limit to how long a baby should bf for - anything over 6mths is weird? A year? When they can drink from a cup? When my FIL says?

How about that my baby can bf for as long as she and I are both comfortable with it? I bf dd for 26months. Why should anyone else have an opinion on that?

OP, no I certainly would not do anything my dh told me too if I didn't want to - I'm a bossy mare.

didyouseewhatshedid I rarely report posts but claiming that women who BF are perverse on a parenting thread is highly offensive (as well as being fucking stupid) so I have reported it.

spudulika - saw your study. I dont buy it, sorry. It may well be that the parents who breastfeed betond 6 months are more likely to be hands on types - hence better mental health of their children IYSWIM.
um so you mean the parents might be good parents and not um perverts? And that the actual act of bf might be good for the chld's mental health not just the milk itself expressed in a bottle? Hmm that is a theory, so I guess either way you can't be against bf?

math my doctor asked me why I was bothering with bf and said that the antibodies a baby get from bf don't last and so it wasn't worth it if dd would drink forumula. I spoke to my HV who worked with the surgery...she said she would ensure he had some proper training Amazing the ignorance out there from some hcps

After the hassle I had getting DS to take a bottle from 6 months of age (because everyone said, 'you have to get him to take a bottle!!!) only to be followed by the hassle of then weaning him off the bottle, it has been a revelation and a relief to decide to have absolutely nothing to do with bottles at all with DD.

She is 12 months and 3 weeks of age and has never had a bottle in her life, nor will she now that she drinks out of a cup - I do note that we are veering very dangerously into beardy-weirdy territory, having crossed over the magical 12 month mark. As someone else posted, where I lived in London, ff just wasn't the done thing.

I am genuinely LOLing that she is going to struggle with independence, never having had exposure to Avent and their products...

tilly don't you know before bottles children never left home and hung on to mammas apron strings till she died.

True fact, thank god for bottles

despite it being something that was very common in the past in the UK, and is very common in large swathes of the world today. It's also never been linked with any disadvantages for children or for mothers. The opposite in fact

Which makes one ask why most people across the world stop once alternatives are available, and less than 5% BF after 6 months?

Also for very many women it's very hard to BF - for a whole number of reasons many women cannot provide enough milk for that long

There clearly are disadvantages, or at least difficulties with BF, or take-up would be far higher.