So is it just me who has viscerally negative reactions to talk about breastfeeding 4 or 5 year olds

[TwigorTreat]

Now look I know its different strokes for different folks and I am not judging anyone as I know logically that its fine and anyone who does is doing what they deem their very best for their own children.

But I am talking about a experiencing a sense of distaste that I cannot help. I do have a negative and almost physical reaction to the thought of breastfeeding my 3 year old let alone an older child. And I have discussed this before when it came to extending breastfeeding for my own child beyond 6 months and with the discussion was capable of making it past that psychological barrier to 11 months.

Perhaps the thought of having a reasonable discussion over this particular reaction is just a step too far for us on Mumsnet. But I thought I'd give it a go anyway .. what, with it being Saturday and all that.

Anyone who experiences the same sense of negativity will no doubt need to gulp down hard before adding to this discussion. Just as anyone who is on the 'other side of the fence' will need to take copious amounts of oxygen into their system to calm down before posting .. I hope both sides do though... it could be interesting and educational

sorry Jeremy if you don't like it but the truth is that lots of babies and mothers get physical, sensual pleasure out of bf.
that is a fact of evolution and a fact of life.
not all the time, of course, sometimes it is draining and wearing.
we can pretend it's not true if you like and we all do it because we are neurotic martyrs

She only lives about ten miles away so she might be a bit suspicious. However she is eating a lot of porridge at the moment so...

Or I could just line DS2, DP and DM up and randomly squirt at them. Must remember to draw the curtains first.

(Thank you for the compliment!)

harpsi - I don't think JV had a problem with the sensuality, I think she was saying that other people might (ie, that it might be seized on by the 'ewwww' brigade).

NB PHYSICAL SENSUAL PLEASURE is not the same of sexual pleasure of course
I think only someone with a pretty sick mind could or would equate the two, or alternatively someone who has not experienced it?
in evolutionary terms, it isn't that we breastfeed because it is pleasureable, but that it is pleasureable because it is an evolutionary advantage
sorry I am probably not making sense I have been teaching all evening and knackered

One of the reasons I breastfed, was that I creeped out when I saw a 3 year old drinking TEA from a bottle.
Although I didn't bf longer than 14 months, all of my kids had a really good start and went onto beakers straight after the breast, only ever using a bottle in dire emergencies.

As to the original post, I do find it distastful to see a walking talking child pawing at his mothers t'shirt for a drink in public. BUT I don't find it distastful if the mother feels that its best for her and the child to continue bf up to school age, as long as its done in private or discreatly.

oh I understand that
but to say that sopahable's post was not that different to someone saying ewww it's perverted is a bit of a leap actually.
imo

right on harpsi
Physical pleasure for dc's is a key reason to bf in the first place, surely? Pleasure = security.
And of course physical pleasure for us - how could it not be pleasurable to give pleasure.

Don't have any problem at all admitting to this, we should all stop pussyfooting and just say, '... and your point is?"

On reflection I was pussyfooting.
"It often feels physically pleasurable when my
child sucks the milk from my breasts."
That's where I stand.

Harpsi - I am well aware that sensual is not the same thing as sexual.

I get immense sensual pleasure from the contact I have with my son - its not just restricted to breastfeeding you know.

But then, I didn't mention 'sensual' in my post - I mentioned 'eroticism'.

OK then I am confused

so it is ok to say that you can get sensual pleasure from physical contact with your baby (and vice versa) but sophable's post was a sop to the bf is pervy brigade.

I don't actually see what is different between saying "I get immense sensual pleasure from the contact I have with my son" and what sophable said:

"with the addition that I believe that the roots of sexuality do lie in infancy, that in fact there is a link between the erotic and that first mother child relationship.

that (hopefully) skin on skin, sensual, intimate time, is intricately bound up with how we perceive ourselves, our bodies and how we attach at the most basic level so of course the two are linked.

there is absolutely nothing perverse in that, the innocence of that early relationship should be sacrosanct. in my view sensuality and innocence are not mutually exclusive."

she is saying bf is sensual and enjoyable for both parties

you are saying physical contact with a baby is the same thing

what's the difference?

i'm confused too. (Not said sarkily)
Think I wasn't concentrating fully last night..

Tbh, reading it again - I think I was reading more into Sophables post than there actually was.

I always remember a post sopahble made on a thread ages ago and I think that clouded my reading of this one, not at all intentional.

So, sorry about the 'not much different' comment Sophable.

So Harpsi, you are right it was a bit of a leap,as it was a leap for you to think that I was uncomfortable with the thought of sensual pleasure in mother/baby contact.

see now this is where we need some honesty and education. my mum told me that when she tried to breast feed me she felt certain pleasurable feelings, which as a naive 20 yr old with a complicated sexual history she felt really uncomfortable feeling. so she stopped and didn't even try with my bro and sis.

if she hadn't have told me that i wouldn't have known to expect it. in fact i even posted here under a name change asking if this was normal. why does no-one tell you this sort of thing. well actually it's obvious why, but it just make things even more difficult and make it a taboo subject.

i make it a point to explain this to my girlfriends who have yet to have children.

I was thinking about this thread this morning as ds pulled his duvet down and said "come in for a cuddle mummy". As we were lying there talking about nothing and cuddling i concluded
a) we all need non erotic but sensual cuddles but my guess is that they are crucially important for pre-schoolers as if children have not had them when they are young they won't be able to give/accept them when they are old
b) its a really scary time for pre-schoolers and toddlers as they are growing up so fast. They need to know that being a "biggie" does not mean that they cannot be petted and babied.
c)parents deal with these issues in different ways. ebf is one way, for my family it is morning cuddles in bed

sorry long post

Hmm I think I DO feel squeamish about really TALL children doing it

This is probably because both of mine are gnome-height so tall children seem like strange creatures to me

So I think there should be a rule that if you can breastfeed when you are both standing up, then I'm allowed to go

I suppose people think that BF a toddler keeps them babyish, is because our culture has relegated BF to being only for babies - and then only on sufference.

It's not that dissimilar to saying that big boys don't cry imo.

Re Sophable's sensual point, does anyone remember that case in the USA (where else?) where a mother was arrested for saying that she felt pleasure from bf her baby (it was a baby, not a toddler)? I don't know if she was ever charged, but it did demonstrate just how fucked up our WASP culture is about sensuality vs. sexuality. Another thread perhaps.

But morningpaper I am dwarf, dd is giant. What to do?

am i the only one not getting the friends reference?

What a ridiculous thing to say mp.

onebatmother I suggest you audition for panto

yes tried that but you have to have twins to get round the employment of minors legislation. dd is a singleton.

Lots of people have talked about extended bf and tandem feeding of children. I am struggling to comprehend how if the balance of milk changes for the needs of the child, how can it be balanced for two completely different aged children at the same time

Also, nature meant us to bf until the next child arrived, which would be annually in the days before contraception and TV! Once the newest arrival began feeding the older child had to fend for it self ( we are talking in evolution terms btw, not a century ago)

Also in times gone by reproduction often started as soon as periods started around 12/13yo, but do we encourage people to go back to that, even though its the 'natural' way because young women are at their most fertile in their teens?

My point being that humans also have the capacity to evolve to meet changing needs of their society and lifestyle. We can't argue animal behaviour on one subject and not in another.

If its 'natural' to extend bf, it is also 'natural' to cuff our young, yet that puts everyone up in arms.

tori, once again I have to correctv you on your information - sorry, and I don't like to sound bossy

But breastfeeding is a highly effective form of contraception if it is carried out physiologically ie many times day and night. Nature certainly does not intend us to be pregnant annually, and breastfeeding allows child spacing so this doesn't happen. Breastfeeding suppresses fertility, and when the older child was relying less on the breast, periods would return and the mother would become pregnant again....anthropology on pre-industrial societies shows that a typical space between children might be 2-3 years.

If nature did not intend for tandem feeding then breastmilk would cease to be produced during pregnancy - this would be a relatively simple thing for evolution to arrange sometime in the last several million years.

The older child in a tandem nursing relationship still gets breastmilk but it is, indeed, breastmilk 'designed' for the new baby - this is not in anyway harmful or 'wrong' for either or them.

Breastfeeding an older child is physiological. We have heard lots of experiences here where it is not only physiological, but enjoyable and loving. Of course you're right to point out that everthing that's 'natural' is not desirable, and we make choices about which parts of 'natural' we want.

Equating breastfeeding an older child with encouraging teenage pregnancy - saying because one behaviour (breastfeeding) is approved of, then it is somehow inconsistent to disapprove of another (pregnancy at 12), and that therefore extended breastfeeding is equally to be avoided - is a very poor argument.

i thought that in times gone by periods came later and one factor in early periods today may be tied to better nutrition (from babyhood to teenage yrs) and possibly to the amt of phytooestrogens which is in our food supply today.

From anectodal evidence from my mums generation they seem to say that most girls got their first periods around 14 or 15. I don't really know though.