To feel annoyed trees were cut down to print this anti-breastfeeding article

[cherrymama]

In the latest edition of Mother and Baby magazine (I bought it for the free gift) the deputy editor has an article about breastfeeding. In it she says that she "couldn't be fagged" to breastfeed and that breastfeeding her newborn using breasts that had previously been used for sex would feel "creepy". And that even the health benefits of breastfeeding "wouldn't induce her to stick her nipple in her bawling baby's mouth."

I think her attitude is horrible! I understand many people try to breastfeed and don't manage, but to say that it is creepy is another thing.

'used for sex'? Makes them sounds like condoms.

Maybe that's how she ended up with the baby, Orm.

That will learn ya! I think it's one of those magazine you only every buy once - and then you snap back to reality and realise it's all trite shite (which is why they need to bribe you with the free gift)

YANBU

I can see a few complaining letters being received about that one.

Do you think the editor was off the day the articles got passed for printing??

What? Seriously?

Not ironic, honestly. A page long article called 'I formula-fed - so what?'

Breasts previously used for sex?

Hasn't she heard of multi-tasking?

Men are quite good at using penises for urination and sex (obviously, not at the same time ). And I thought they couldn't multi-task...

I'm a bit confused by this too. M&B is pants, but I would think they'd be intelligent enough not to risk alienating so many of their target readership with comments like that. Definitely a straight article with no ironic intent? If so, that's really, really awful.

Sorry, xpost.

better have a section since her fanjo has been used for sex as well

I'm sure intended to be tongue in cheek.

ps I am NOT anti-formula feeding, I just thought the attitude that breastfeeding is "creepy" was wrong.

She must have insisted on a C-section too, assuming her vagina was previously used for sex.

Idiot.

oh ShatnersBassoon, what an awesome nn

the same copy that said controlled crying/ cio may be bad for babies but later on in the mag tells you how `to do it....

Even if it is intended to be tongue-in-cheek, you can imagine it having a bad effect on someone who's feeling vulnerable postnatally and struggling with bf. I don't think they should be taking that risk for the sake of being controversial or something -- it's not like they are generally a hard-hitting or serious magazine, so it's not really the place to "stir things up", surely? It's a bit of fluff, that mag.

There is a sort of serious point hidden in all of that - some people do feel a bit anti-bf because they cannot disassociate breasts from sex (though they do manage with hands, tongues, and other parts of the body commonly used in sexual contact). And they have a deep-seated dislike of the idea of bf, for this reason, or indeed for other reasons.

But there is no need to phrase it all in such a screwed-up way, is there? 'Stick the nipple in' and the 'bawling baby'...it's all a bit unpleasant and, well, woman-hating and baby-hating, isn't it?

And it strikes me that working on a magazine called Mother & Baby means a fairly warm and positive attitude to women and babies would be something of a help.

How odd.

I don't think it is tongue in cheek...unfortunately it's not online, I just checked. But her main message is that she just didn't feel like breastfeeding, she wanted her body back after 9 months,and that she found the idea creepy - her breasts are

"part of my sexuality, too - not just breasts, but funbags.... seeing your teeny tiny baby latch on where only a lover has been feels, well, a little creepy".

She does admit that breastmilk is better for baby. But she wanted to give her boobs " a chance to stay on my chest rather than dangling around my stomach"

'fun bags'???? I thought they were small packets of haribo sweets not breasts!

Isn't it against some sort of guidelines to be pro-FF? (on TV they can't suggest FF is better than BF, even if it's not an advert)

Spose they got round it by saying 'she does admit that breastmilk is better for baby'.

FFS. It's actually Breastfeeding Awareness Week starting today.

To play devil's advocate, is she not doing what some militant BF mums do to belittle FF mums' choices?

I hasten to add I do NOT agree with an article like that (not read it myself, going from your snippets) - it is balanced that they had printed an opinion showing that women can choose, but I still think that the line to take should be "I personally could not feel comfortable with BF despite knowing that it was what was recommended as best" rather than to outline all her personal feelings, which seem to reinforce negative thoughts about BF.

If however, the article was written very much along the lines of "I really wanted to BF but I had all these thoughts" etc, then is it not just printing what some women may be afraid to say out loud?

Why do we always come back to beating ourselves up about feeding? My line will always be that BF and FF is like home-cooked food v microwave meals. Eating just microwave meals will not kill you, you will still be the same person, but if you'd had more fresh cooked food you'd probably be a bit healthier. For some people the trade-off is not worth it enough to change.

V.annoying that we can't read the article online.

I understand that some women really don't like breastfeeding, and that's fine (formula isn't poison now, is it?). I also think it's a Good Thing for women to be able to talk about this - I loathe the idea that if you don't BF then you're somehow failing your baby. There's enough guilt involved with being a mother at the best of times.

OTOH this article sounds pretty vile.