AIBU to not want to breastfeed?

[VixeyV]

Hi this is my first post but I have been a lurker since the start of my pregnancy.

Anyway, my question is I'm 20 weeks pregnant and the midwife keeps pushing me into breastfeeding. I just don't want to and don't get why she won't stop asking me how I'll feed.

To be honest, the thought of it freaks me out. I didn't breastfeed my daughter and she's fine on formula, she has aptimal because that's the best.

So what do you think? Should my midwife stop nagging me?

u r lucky rainbow to have a supportive hands on dh!!!

Thank you baskingseals.

The bonding issue is another thing entirely though. I think it's a bit a of new and probably artificial development in parenting to think that Dads need to be involved in feeding. Aren't most Fathers out at work all day in this day for a start?

I don't think it's natural to be honest but that is just my opinion. My DS for example at the age of three is becoming very Daddy-Obsessed to the point of pushing me out of the bed at night so that he can cuddle and talk to DH rather than have a last BF. I think that's amazing and the sort of progress and evidence of your child's security that you'd want.

You can get really good slings you can use for toddlers where they sit on the hip. No idea though how old your ds is!

lol at the shovellor and force feeder comment!!!!

he is 19 weeks and 22lbs.....

No, I am not lucky. He is a parent just as much as I am and so it's also been an equal share ie a partnership.
You sound unlucky though (sad). I can see therefore why you said what you said about the feeding.

"no one has mentioned about how important it is for dads to feed baby..... "

It's not.

If they want a special role that helps them bond then let them be responsible for bathing and putting baby to bed, like my DH was. It's wrong that babies - the most vulnerable people in society - should be disadvantaged simply in order to provide an adult male with an a 'bonding' opportunity. It's not necessary. Dads bond perfectly well with their bf babies and always have done.

by the time dp comes home ds is tired and cranky and so feeding him means he gets some happy time. i also need to be able to spend an hour not attached to ds so i can do dds homework with her.... am not good at multitasking.

Sparkly that sounds like your DH can only cope with your ds when he is feeding him. does he not spend anytime with him other than feeding him?

That is slightly idealistic though Titty. My DH is NEVER home in time for bath and bed. Its always been that way, its due to geographical location and his career, was that way before I had children with him, and was always going to be a factor. Which is why we compromised and decided to let him feed our children a bottle of EBM.

Its better than nothing.

Which is why I dont buy the "extraordinary relationship that women were meant to have with their children. Artificially feeding robs them both of that bond"

If my husband was able to have a special with our babies by giving that one bottle a day, the mothers who gave several (regardless of what was contained within that bottle) damn well had a special bond too.

thank you rainbow...... yes you are lucky!!! anyway back to the OP..... do what YOU want ...... now if you are feeding the baby McDonalds chips at 4 months I might have something to say LOL!!!!

not really booyhoo..... a bit of throw in the air giggling time but he is always busy!!!

According to stats (which might be a bit out of date) only 45% breastfeed at the start.

The remaining 55% of children in the UK are not suffering from leukemia, Crohns disease and diabetes (possibly all at once according to the previous posts!) so, though no one disputes that breast is best, it's unfair to load such scarey stuff onto Mum's who ffeed, possibly not by choice, when all around us is evidence that it is not the case.

Breastfeeding levels are lowest in poorest areas of the country - that must also influence the health statisics.

my OH is in the navy and only gets home 2 (at most) weekends a month, ds2 is 11 months and breastfed but they make the most of the weekends and OH does as much as he can with both the boys, all the stuff i do when he's not here. tbh a bottle wouldn't make much difference one way or the other. OH never saw himself at a disadvantage because we dont use a bottle. he is a parent as much as i am.

isnt it soemthing like only 5% still bf at 4 months????? cant remember

JosieZ, it isn't 'loading scary stuff' it's giving them facts so they can make a choice based on information rather than what people think is 'weird'. if people choose to ignore the facts or interpret them in a way to suit themselves that's up to them but everyone should have all the facts when making such an important decision regarding their children's health. some people give more thought to which shoes their child should wear than what they are going to feed them.

Its true booyhoo but during the week when they are asleep, there's not a whole lot you can do with them except a dream feed.

He'd still be a dad without it - he'd still bond without it - but it was a bit of special time where they'd open their eyes and gaze at him for 15 minutes or so where he sat there cooing to them and bonding, where he otherwise wouldn't have DURING THAT TIMESLOT. It was more than if he hadn't done it.

For someone to say that wasn't important (Titty's post) - sorry, that's up to us, not you. It was important to us, so we made it happen. End of.

Sloany, BF helps you bond not just because you are giving your baby food and holding them close like with bottlefeeding, but because of the constant release of oxytocin and prolactin caused by the baby's suckling, which are 'altruistic' hormones, particularly oxytocin, which has been called the 'hormone of love'. It's also the case that breastmilk provides the baby with tiny doses of opiate like substences when it breaks down in the gut which alter the baby's mood subtly as well, making them more relaxed and reducing sensations of pain.

In addition to this women and their breastfed babies are physically in tune with each other in a very profound and subtle way - some people refer to it as the 'breastfeeding dance' or a 'conversation'. The baby gives off feeding cues and the mothers body responds without her being conscious of it. The nearest thing to it is sex I suppose.... in terms of the two people being in tune with each other at a very primitive and instinctive level. In any case, that's what I understand by bf helping maternal and infant bonding.

And it's true that bottlefeeders are robbed of those normal mothering hormones, which in my view isn't a good thing, even though the love bottlefeeding mothers have for their babies is powerful and triumphs over everything. Still think that mums and babies who don't experience the 'breastfeeding dance' are missing out on something important that would have given them both a great deal of pleasure and intimacy.

Re: DH - I stand by what I said. My DH is strongly bonded to all three of our DC's, despite never having fed any of them with a bottle.

And there is no evidence that paternal bonding is better in families where women bottlefeed. If anything the evidence points to higher rates of family breakdown and paternal absence in those sectors of society where bottlefeeding is the norm (not suggesting a cause and effect relationship - just pointing out that there is a correspondance).

According to stats (which might be a bit out of date) only 45% breastfeed at the start.

No - it's about 78% now.

"The remaining 55% of children in the UK are not suffering from leukemia, Crohns disease and diabetes"

Straw man argument. Nobody has said that all ff babies will be ill, only that there are higher rates of these illnesses in ff children.

"Breastfeeding levels are lowest in poorest areas of the country - that must also influence the health statisics."

Yes, it does. Which is why the good quality studies on infant feeding on which current NHS recommendations are based 'control' for these factors.

but important for who?

"It's wrong that babies - the most vulnerable people in society - should be disadvantaged simply in order to provide an adult male with an a 'bonding' opportunity. It's not necessary. Dads bond perfectly well with their bf babies and always have done"

Bloody fantastic. My DH agrees whole-heartedly!

As another poster has said, it's six months until feeding can be done by a man, no time at all. They are called "babes in arms" for a reason; they should be close to the breast.

As I've said, DS has a fantastic relationship with DH, maybe even too early for him to transfer his allegiance to the male role model but I think it's to do with early security. He feels ready to move on and that's great!

i am sorry but dare i say it..... there are times when i am not constantly at my babys disposal.....like when i need to go to parents eve for dd or PTA meeting or dare i say it...having a night out!!! (heaven forbid i may have a life seperate from being mummy)

for me bf for 12 weeks and from then 1 ff or 2 a day will not hurt my child..... what if i fell ill and couldnt be there..... i find it comforting to know my ds will take whatever from wherever. anyway ds was such a big baby that bf was just a mad panic to fill him big tum..... far from romantic and everything titty said. he panicked and fussed and at 12 weeks when he took a bottle and it came out easier he was far more content. hey ho..... off to eat chocolate and express for tomorrow x

Do you think its not a case of "its not important" if you look at the stats at a much wider level - can you not perhaps look at my situation and say that in my situation, my DH (who is clearly not able to keep the hours yours does) did more bonding with his children than he would have had he not given a bottle of EBM to them, and that therefore in our situation, it was not only valuable, but important?

And whilst you have demonstrated that its not essential (which I think is a better word than important, as illustrated above) (and - I totally agree that its not in any way essential, either in my situation, or yours) - that in certain situations its more than if it had not been done? Particularly in the absence of being phsyically available for other forms of parenting or bonding during the working week?

I do see, as a breastfeeding other, what you mean about the oxytocin and the breastfeeding "conversation" (which is why I hate feeding in loud, soft play type places, because you are just not as in tune with each other, can't hear the gulps, etc, its just not quite the same) but I also feel the essay quote you posted could be seen to imply they are robbed of a bond per se which is never going to go down well...I disute the wording more than the concept itself.

Breastfeeding mother, not "other"...

"i am sorry but dare i say it..... there are times when i am not constantly at my babys disposal.....like when i need to go to parents eve for dd or PTA meeting or dare i say it...having a night out!!! (heaven forbid i may have a life seperate from being mummy)"

I have done 5 years of breastfeeding (my two youngest have never had formula). During that time I have studied, worked, volunteered
and led a normal social life. I went back to work two and a half days a week when my first was 5 weeks old. I still bf her for 18 mmonths.

How do you think the vast majority of bf mothers around the world cope? Those that have no access to affordable formula are also those who tend to have large families and no financial support. They have to work to support themselves and their children.