Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to be glad I can't remember being breastfed?

410 replies

retrocutie · 28/05/2015 15:16

I just read this article in the, erm, Daily Mail. In it, a woman who is breastfeeding her 5 year-old and 2 year-old talks of her wish to still be breastfeeding when her kids are 10 years old. This makes me feel a bit uneasy. A child of 10 will remember being breastfed and I just think it is a bit yucky. Sorry. I am glad I wasn't still breastfed at that age. Some children are going through puberty at 10… I dunno, it just seems a bit, well, wrong somehow. At some point it becomes inappropriate, surely?

Not only that, but as is often the case in these families, the poor husband has been banished to the spare room so that the mother can co-sleep with the DC. Just seems a bit unfair. I feel more than a bit sorry for him.

AIBU?

OP posts:
bigmouthstrikesagain · 01/06/2015 10:29

spilly - your posts are a personal view and they make judgements on the choices made by parents on how to feed their child. These are choices that (as far as you or anyone not directly involved can possibly know) do not harm anyone else. How you can possibly say that the comments are not insulting on a personal level? What gives you the right to decide what people are allowed to be offended by? The fact that you have not actually directly made these choices yet make it more understandable that you are lacking in empathy. It is also wrong to make deliberately provocative statements about formula feeding. Even in defence of breast feeding - the research into both is not definitive and ultimately though breast feeding is the normal way to feed a baby (as in how we are biologically 'designed') We are very fortunate to have alternatives that are effective and should be more readily available without the heavy costs / and judgements attached to formula currently.

I was going to breast feed for 6 months and then introduce formula then cows milk at 12 months... then I had ds and he didn't want a bottle or formula - I had no pressing reason to force a change so I continued to breast feed - introduced milk in a cup at 12 months but also breastfed till he was 23 months - so he never had a bottle, on solids by 6 months, he was walking by 11months, sleeping in a bed by 20 months, reached all his milestones at roughly appropriate ages, went to school happily etc. etc. That he had a mixed diet of breast milk and food and cows milk from 1 year old till nearly 2 did not hamper him in anyway, quite the opposite. His younger sisters continued to breastfeed well into their 3rd year - not a big deal. And if I had done what I had originally planned I would have been ok with that to - my children were not on board with stopping so I did not, other choices are available. No judgement here. I think parenting is hard enough without having to deal with the weight of other peoples opinions/ judgements... I am always happy to hear about other peoples experiences though.

PterodactylTeaParty · 01/06/2015 10:47

I assumed the poster who mentioned formula and harm meant it in the sense of health risks of formula as opposed to bf - which there are, across a broad population. If she meant "giving your child formula rather than breastmilk will inevitably harm it" then yes, obviously that's ludicrous.

It's not mean and judgy to say that breastmilk is the optimal choice healthwise, all else being equal. It would be mean and judgy to say "...therefore every mother should bf rather than ff", because all else never is equal and deciding what's best for your family in your situation is a bigger decision than just that. (And I say this as someone who was planning to ff if bf had been tough for me for more than a week or two - all respect for those who stick at it, but for various reasons that would not have been the best choice for me and my family.)

Aermingers · 01/06/2015 15:14

The health benefits are actually disputed and there are scientists who think it is purely down to class rather than breast milk. In societies where the poor breastfeed more than the rich the benefits are either massively lower or non-existent.

And she certainly wasn't saying it was the optimal choice health wise all things being equal. The way you put it TeaParty is fine. But you're rewording it and imagining she said something different. The word she used was harm. She accused other people of harming their children.

PomeralLights · 01/06/2015 16:10

I was all ready to support Tulips but though I would re-read her post first and you are right Aer she refers to formula causing harm.
That's not appropriate and I can't defend it. I agree it was a terrible thing to say.

Dd is EBF now but she has had the occasional bottle of formula in the early days when bf was painful and hard. Lots and lots of bf babies are given some formula. The idea that such a widespread baby food is harmful is a bit ridiculous really.

It's a long leap from 'less than idea' to harmful.

PomeralLights · 01/06/2015 16:13

It's like I was once told when pregnant that not eating 5 a day when pregnant was harmful.

FFS. I can't afford to be buying loads of fruit. I eat a reasonable amount of veg but not always 5 a day.

I accept my pregnancy diet (and bf diet tbh) was not always ideal but it was a long way from harmful.

Sorry if you don't feel that's a helpful comparison but I feel it shows a similar level of judgey pants attitude.

DisappointedOne · 01/06/2015 16:17

When DD was born she had no sucking reflex. She had no sucking reflex because she had a tummy full of mucus, so felt full. A very wise nurse on the night shift suggested giving her a bit of formula (she'd licked at colostrum). She squirted about 5ml into DD's mouth and it literally bounced straight back out of her tummy, bright yellow. She said there was no point "wasting the good stuff" until all the mucus was out, so every couple of hours that's what I did. Took the best part of 5 days for it all to come out. By which point my milk was in. For other reasons we didn't establish breastfeeding, but she'd take a bottle of expressed milk.

So formula does have it's uses, and it's not poison.

PterodactylTeaParty · 01/06/2015 16:21

I read the word 'harm' in the context of seeing a lot of these discussions, where people refer to risks of formula rather than benefits of breastfeeding. But yes, she did say 'formula causes harm' without clarifying any further - and if she did indeed just mean that giving formula to a baby will harm it, that's a bizarre and unfair thing to say, and plainly not true.

The health benefits are actually disputed

Not by any major health organisation, they aren't. But that of course doesn't mean that any given ff child will be less healthy than any given bf child - they're differences you see across a broad population of thousands and thousands.

Aermingers · 01/06/2015 17:16

Pomeral no reputable health professional would have said not having 5 a day would 'harm' your baby. A quick Google shows that it's 'recommended' or best practice, it's not classed as 'harmful'. I doubt you were told it was 'harmful' not to do it and you're actually twisting advice that it was recommended in order to defend the OP.

There are ways of communicating things. The OP has been quite explicit that she's not saying breast is best where possible. She's saying people who give formula are harming their children. There's no gray area there.

PomeralLights · 01/06/2015 17:24

Aer I wasn't told it by a HCP I was told it by a hyonobirthing practitioner.

I was trying to agree with you? That formula is not harmful?

PomeralLights · 01/06/2015 17:32

I feel like you're twisting my posts. I was comparing saying formula is harmful to saying a less than perfect diet is harmful. Both are clearly bollocks, often spouted by people with clear agendas.

To clarify again I don't agree that formula is harmful and think it was a terrible thing to say. I am not defending Tulips (who I assume you mean, not the OP).

Aermingers · 01/06/2015 17:36

Oh, okay. And yes I did mean Tulips. I thought that you were saying that all sorts of things were described as harmful so it was fine to say not breastfeeding was deliberately harming your child. Sorry, misunderstood.

Just on a side note, why was a hypnobirthing practitioner advising you on diet in pregnancy (and giving it badly) surely she wasn't qualified to do that?

Which is sort of what I mean. When you get into the care of small babies all sorts of people think that they can present opinion as fact and brow beat people into doing what they believe is right. From Gina Ford to the other extreme of attachment parenting. It's just fucking frustrating that people don't seem to have the imagination or intelligence to realise that just because something works really well for them it might be destructive and sometimes downright dangerous for other people. Tulips being a case in point.

PomeralLights · 01/06/2015 17:38

Diet in pregnancy was part of the hyonobirthing course I did, hence the advice and my reaction (that's bollocks, you can stick it etc)

DisappointedOne · 01/06/2015 17:46

to the other extreme of attachment parenting

What's extreme about attachment parenting??!

GuybrushThreepwoodMP · 01/06/2015 18:29

I think aermingers just meant that attachment parenting is at the opposite end of the parenting spectrum from Gina For as it is all baby-led and both be parenting styles about which followers can become very passionate. In reality, most of us pick and choose from parenting theories based on what suits us rather than following every aspect of one particular 'style'.

Attachment parenting also seems to mean different things to different people. I have heard attachment parenting advocates say I am psychologically damaging my child by putting her in a pushchair rather than a sling and I have heard other advocates of the same theories saying this is nonsense and there are many ways to create healthy attachment. It's all very subjective isn't it?

DisappointedOne · 01/06/2015 18:33

Ah, I see what you mean. Doesn't help that I'm revising attachment theory at the moment.............

GuybrushThreepwoodMP · 01/06/2015 18:59

Attachment theory and attachment parenting don't always seem to be as directly connected as I thought they would be!

Aermingers · 01/06/2015 22:02

I didn't mean all attachment parenting was extreme, but they are two ends of the same spectrum. From those who will leave a newborn crying and not make eye contact on one hand and those who have four year olds in slings and teenagers in the bed on the other.

Catsize · 02/06/2015 08:12

What an annoying article.
Breastfeeding at that age is unusual, but I cannot see it as wrong when we consider it pefectly appropriate to feed our children another mammal's milk.
I suppose, arguably, she could express, but to do that fuels the 'boobs are for sex' argument.
The husband point is a red herring - he sleeps in another room regardless of the situation for medical reasons, and the reason he feels 'left out' is because of the time his wife spends with the children. Not the twisted and crap way the DM has portrayed it. No surprise there then.

Minifingers9 · 02/06/2015 08:50

"That's not appropriate and I can't defend it. I agree it was a terrible thing to say."

If there is evidence considered reputable enough to be disseminated to parents by the NHS, that formula use appears to increase the risk of SIDS and diabetes, and is also linked to higher rates of breast cancer in women, then it's absolutely not unreasonable for someone to believe that formula use can be harmful - it clearly is for some women and some babies. It's more socially comfortable to present breastfeeding as a sort of optimal parenting practice, like making sure children eat 5 portions of veg a day and always do their reading practice, but actually it's just the biologically normal way to feed a baby and the baseline against which we measure the benefits or risks of using formula. That's how health comparisons work - the baseline is the biological norm, not the social norm.

here

Re: the OP - probably most people are happy not to remember being breastfed, because we live in a culture where breastfeeding and lactating breasts are actually considered a bit yuck by a lot of people. Combine that with our disgust at nudity and ageing in middle-aged women and you can see where the gross out factor comes from. I suspect people in previous centuries, when breastfeeding was seen as a beautiful act of motherly love - beautiful enough to be immortalised in thousands of paintings which were hung in great houses and in churches - here people wouldn't have had the same reaction.

As regards prolonged bed-sharing - it's simply normal in some cultures for parents to sleep with older children. Japan for starters. There's nothing wrong with it if both parents and children are happy to live that way.

PomeralLights · 02/06/2015 09:23

No I'm sorry, saying formula increases the risk of SIDS and diabetes = it causing harm is bollocks.

Co-sleeping increases the risk of SIDS. Am I harming my child?!

Pretty much every parenting decision has a 'better in this way, worse in that way' consequence. If we labelled them all as harmful, mothers would be so neurotic they wouldn't leave the house. Which would probably be....harmful.

No wonder the rate of PND is so high when this kind of shit is thrown around so casually.

myneighbourtotoro2 · 02/06/2015 09:56

Sorry but I don't think it's the use of formula that is linked to higher breast cancer in women . Breast feeding has been linked to decreasing YOUR chance of having breast cancer , formula feeding obviously doesn't increase anyone's risk of it.

I honestly feel sorry for anyone who has the time and inclination to think about these things at length . I don't understand why people can't feed their children as they see fit without being judged .

If I was the type of person to believe those of you who say formula feeding is harming my children I'd be a wreck. Lucky I'm not. Why would anyone care how anyone else feeds their children?

Very odd.

NinkyNonkers · 02/06/2015 10:00

Actually co sleeping lowers the risk of SIDS considerably. Unsafe co sleeping increases the risk of smothering/suffocation, which is a totally different thing to SIDS.

NinkyNonkers · 02/06/2015 10:02

That's what has been said myneighbour, that BF is the baseline and everything else has to be compared. So BF has the effect of lessening the risk of breast cancer, not BF leaves the risk the same. That's how health messages are given by nhs etc

myneighbourtotoro2 · 02/06/2015 10:08

I agree ninky it has just been terribly worded down thread.

Minifingers9 · 02/06/2015 10:46

"No I'm sorry, saying formula increases the risk of SIDS and diabetes = it causing harm is bollocks"

Would you prefer 'may be harmful'? Or 'using formula increases the risk of'? Is that wording acceptable?

There is evidence from MRI's that the brains of ff babies look slightly different than the brains of BF babies, also that ff may be associated with lower cognitive function detectable at a population level. This suggests that formula use may have a negative impact on all babies who use it. Don't kick me for saying this - it's also true that for babies who can't have breastmilk because their mothers are unable to breastfeed it is a life-saver (in the absence of donor breastmilk) so it's not all one way.

on another note - arguing about the inconsistencies in the research is not unreasonable, but it's also not unreasonable to feel that the research finding risks and deficits associated with formula use has some validity.

Both are reasonable positions!