Guardian article on EBF

[Bumperlicious]

Here.

Not the usual knee jerk reaction but still finishes with:

'I'm more swayed by one mother who stopped breastfeeding her 14-month-old for the simple reason that "once they're old enough to walk across a room and ask for it, I think it's probably time to stop."'

Since you ask...I'm with the sentiment of the last sentence you quote.

I've just finished reading the article and found it really interesting. The reactions are typical. Why would someone find it a turn on to feed an older child but not a baby (as thought by opponents)?

If nature enables a mother to carry on feeding her child, then to me it seems that there must be a reason. I'm not sure but are childrens' immune system not fully mature until they're a few years old?

And why should it be anyone's business that a mother wants to feed their kid for years? Breasts are not just for sexual pleasure!

My ds aged 15 months walked across the room and asked for milk the other day. The thought of denying him because he can walk is ridicumous - he's been walking since 10 months - does that mean I should have stopped bfing him then? What about his cow's milk allergy - why should I pay for special milk for him when i can make it for free?

What about children who can't talk or walk until nearer two years of age? should they be bf for longer?

Actually just continued to read the comments and the author of the book has responded to the journo about all kinds of misquoting

Snowball, what about 'once they're old enough to crawl it's time to stop'?

Old enough to smile/talk/pull your top down? What about if they are old enough to walk but not talk?

Where's your line and why?

I'm not saying it is wrong or bad to stop then, but it is wrong and bad to make that judgement for others.

belgo I agree. Walking/talking seems a bit arbitary to me.

I think the "line" differs for every woman/child and that should be respected.

Funnily enough, I can't understand the ew reactions now more than when I was bfing my DD. I bfed till DD was 14 months but stopped because I was struggling to fit it in with work. I had thought for a while that I would like to do natural term weaning and was, and still am, a keen evangelist for extended bfing. However I read on here once that someone said they felt more 'ew' about bfing since they'd stopped, and I can kind of understand it.

When I was bfing I felt really special, like I was part of a club (weird I know) and it took up a lot of my consciousness. Now I've stopped it doesn't permeate as much, and I don't care as much about it as I thought I would.

As has also been pointed out before, you never just start out bfing a 3 year old, it just evolves and you don't notice the change. I couldn't imagine bfing my 2.5 year old, though while I was still bfing I could.

The line for anyone is their own to make.

For me the line comes, which a child has developed to a point that they no longer need it. This differs in cultures, but for most children living int he WEstern world I believe it lies at about the point that a child can walk/talk and request it. I don't mean that those are criteria one way or another.

Snow - why does walking/talking/requesting mean that a child doesn't need it any more? And why is that a Western world thing?

"As has also been pointed out before, you never just start out bfing a 3 year old, it just evolves and you don't notice the change."

That's a good point. I was talking to my sister a few months ago about breastfeeding a few months ago and I imagined feeding DD (18 months at the time) and the idea seemed really weird. I fed her until 14-15 months (can't quite remember) and it never seemed weird then and wouldn't have seemed weird at 18 months if we had kept going.

A lot of people on here describe it as a relationship and I think that's accurate - whilst DD and I had that relationship it was normal. Once it had stopped for a while the thought of it seemed strange.

I still can't understand why anybody thinks that about another woman feeding her own child though. I just don't get how anyone could find that disgusting.

I am interested in the article as I breastfed for longer than I had anticipated,but only to about 18months, which in my circle, was definitely considered extended! The final sentence of the article is probably what I would have said before having BF my own child.

I am trying to become less judgemental yet I admit to feeling uneasy about much older children being BF and I read articles like this to try and see the other POV and my aim is to understand it a little better.

I have, and always will, defend anyone's right to do whatever they want and to continue feeding for as long as they and their child are happy to, but would like to truly believe in it iyswim.

It coincides with the child being able to get its nutritional/comfort needs elsewhere. This nutiritonal needs differ in less developed countries.

Surely requesting it could be seen as a sign that they do still need it?

Surely it's a cultural matter not one of nutrition snow which dictates when people stop BF. If someone chooses to go against that norm is doesn't make it wrong.
A child that doesn't walk or talk can ask for breastmilk (babies give cues, they can learn sign language etc) which is why we can feed on demand. You could argue that they could get the comfort and food elsewhere (eg formula, daddy cuddles)?

thesecondcoming - my dd2 hates all vegetables and refuses to eat them - but I still try and force her to eat them, not for my own benefit, but for her benefit - it's up to the parent to decide what is best for our children, not the child.

I am also interested in why people have such strong reactions against extended BF.

Interesting point thesecondcoming, and my instinct is to agree with you, but there are nutritional reasons at 10months that would still be beneficial, and I suppose in the same way you may encourage eating of foods if a baby was to stop eating, you would try with BF?

thesecondcoming my 3 month old is on a nursing strike and that's the only way I can feed him. So, should I stop and wean him? Er I don't think so.

Why cultural not nuritional?

There is evidence that bf is better than formula in a baby. There is no similar evidence for EBF.

I didn't experience it thesecondcoming and TBH if my child, at 10 months had gone on nursing strike, I probably wouldn't have continued either, but I was trying to see why advice would be given, as for some they would take any advice to be able to continue.

Also I am not sure that just because it would be wrong for you and I, it would be fair to call it 'icky' I also wouldn't class a10months as a toddler.

I don't think there is anything icky about making a 10 month old baby bf. But if you didn't mind stopping at that point, then of course that's fine as well.

I am very happy to admit that not only do I bf for my child's benefit but also for my own benefit - health benefits, financial benefits, convenience. It also relaxes me. Oh and it happens to be very good for my child too. Nothing wrong with admitting that.

Does anyone have a guardian login? There is a glaring misconception on there at the moment about breastmilk quality being affected by the mother's diet - would love to see this challenged as I feel angry that I nearly stopped breastfeeding over this misconception at 4 months.

I think it was great that the interviewee went on and challenged the article and the comments!

Snowball - your reactions are cultural and personal, it's v. clear. Nothing wrong with that, so why you are reluctant to accept it I don't know.

The older the child and the more varied the diet the less of a role breastmilk plays in the overall nutrition of a child. But nutritionally, breastmilk remains a good thing - it doesn't turn to dishwater at some arbitrary age. Nutritionally, of course a healthy, thriving toddler doesn't depend on it - it could be removed from his diet without any measurable deficit, but it makes no sense to suggest it's worthless as a part of a diet.

Most mothers continue bf not for the 'food value' but for other equally valid reasons.