Why do people feel BF beyong 12 months is more about the mother than the baby - genuinely interested.

[fruitstick]

Someone said this to me recently - that feeding beyond a year has more to do with the emotional needs of the mother than the needs of the baby.

I didn't particularly question it at the time as I've heard it so often over the years but really - why do people think this?

I am still BF DS2 at 11 months. I BF DS1 for 7 months then stopped. I planned to do the same with DS2 but just carried on. I intended to carry on until 12 months but I may carry on again.

But why would that be for my benefit not DSs?

It may not be about nutrition at that point but so little of the food we consume is (I wouldn't eat nearly so many biscuits if that were so).

And also, even if it were true, it implies that mothers are only allowed to do things that involve an element of self sacrifice.

This isn't intended to be a 'aren't they awful' thread. I am genuinely interested why people think that breastfeeding beyond 12 months no longer benefits the child.

I have no idea why people say this.

Tbh, imo it may just be something they are repeating without actually thinking about WHY they are saying this.

Most people do bf longer than the average for this country just becasue that is what works for them. Kind of by accident. And there are conmtinued benefits for child and parent. The longer it is done, the greater the benefit.

WHO recomend 2 years, so if it is good enough for them...

Fwiw, I speak as someone who failed to bf ds successfully but hope to bf the one I am carrying atm and will do so as long as it works for both of us. The more bfing there is, the better it is for those of us struggling against an anti-bfing culture.

What bothers me is, why shouldn't it be for the mother as well as for the child?

I'm bfing my ds aged 15 months not just because it's good for him, but because it's enjoyable for me, and has health benefits for me, and why shouldn't I do something that I enjoy?

belgo - that's what I've been thinking. I don't understand.

Best of luck nicky - I hope everything goes well for you and the baby.

Probably because if you FF you can switch to cow's milk and are advised to stop using bottles at a year.

I think it is hard for some people to understand that breastfeeding is about much much more than nutrition.

It just seems to be what people say when extended breastfeeding comes into conversation.

I find it uniquely irritating so so many levels.

Ds and I used to "reconnect" with a bf when I came home from work. He certainly didn't look like he was doing me a favour, nor when he was soothed back to sleep with a feed in the night. Idiots. (not you, obv!)

These people probably did not bf for very long (and if so, grudgingly), if at all.

if it were true, then anyone breastfeeding beyond a year would have to force their child to latch on and nurse

and anyone who has breastfed a toddler knows that's the most ridiculous thing in the world!

They just don't understand and probably feel it would encourage independance to just give child a bottle/beaker. I bf until DS was 18 months. It has encouraged bonding greatly. We co-slept and he is a very affectionate and loving toddler.
I recall SIL commenting to her partner "I bet you're glad I don't do that, It'd put you off your lunch" when DS was about 17 months! I was busy at the time, but I expect she is of the same opinion, as a mum who couldn't bf, that I should let DS grow up and walk around with a beaker like her child.

I mean, since I was busy breastfeeding at the time, and because she said it i was covering up with a scarf, so I didn't turn around and question her comment.

I used to believe this. Now that I have a 13 months old who is still very much into breastfeeding while I'd be happy to give up, I realise what an idiot I was.

However, those people who have "I've been breastfeeding for xyz months" tickers in their forum signatures, kind of make it look like that it's more for their own ego than for the child's benefit.

Because they know nothing but believe they know everything they need to about the subject.

If it were astro-physics, they'd realise they knew nothing (I have yet to witness an energetic dinner party conversation about astro-physics) but for some reason everyone thinks they're an expert on BF so feel free to spout rubbish about it.

as a vague stab at a medical answer to this q: i had debilitating pelvic/hip pain through pregnancy and after and my osteo who specialises in pregnant/post natal women said it would prob continue until i stopped bf as the combination of hormones and water you retain in the tissues while bf can bugger up your body and even cause long-term damage. that's a non-medical versino of what he said! and he advised bf no later than 12 mths for this reason... i know osteos aren't nec regarded as medical, but could this be a reason?

I'm pretty sure that if it hadn't gone so horribly wrong for us early on, I would have continued b/f DS beyond one year - supply permitting as I was back at work at 6 months. I don't think I'd have gone as far as 2 years though - I am sure I'm totally prejudiced but the thought of b/f a child who can ask for it just doesn't sit well with me. But at one they're still babies and I still wanted to baby him in all sorts of other ways. I would have to be honest though and say it would have been as much about me, possibly more, than about him. I can't say if that's wrong, but I doubt it.

I think people say this because the perception is that once a child can ask for it he should not be doing it. That TV comedy did nothing for the cause with "bitty" or whatever it was.

Anyway, has the recommendation recently changed? I thought it was one year.

Wow. I had no idea people said this about BFing over 12 months! I clearly spend far too much time on MN! My DD is 14 months and I'm still BF, she's just started to go to nursery so I want to give it a few more months as someone told me it was good for their immune system. Is that so wrong? I feel like a freak now!

Because they are nobs.

This is something that interests me as well as I bf my 14month DD and don't have any particular plans to stop until/unless she chooses.

Imo it is a personal choice for baby and mother and as long as both prefer to continue I don't see a problem.

However, I am aware of some bf relationships where the mother seems to attempt to 'persuade' the DC to continue bfing past the point where it appears the child is 'demand weaning'. I'm not talking about nursing strikes in younger shildren, more eg 3+ children where the child has refused the breast over a longish period and the mum is desperate to get them to continue.

With a big disclaimer that I really don't understand the situation as my DD is still pretty young, I have to admit I have sometimes wondered whether the enthusiasm for bfing in these circumstances has become more about the mother than the child.

I feel rather uncomfortable posting this as i am very conscious that I don't want to prejudge a situation where I have no experience, but I wonder if it these sorts of situations that people are thinking of when they make these kinds of comments?

sorry have just reaslied this doesn't address the 'only being for the mother's benefit' point! but am still interested as to whether anyone has also heard there are deliterious impacts on mother's body (other than droopy tits obviously)

WHO recommend exclusive breastfeeding until the baby is 6 months, then continuing alongside solids until the child is at least 2 years old, for optimal health and growth

(and no, this doesn't only apply to 3rd world countries!!!)

No no Hmm - there are lots of benefits to breastfeeding past a year. The WHO advises breastfeeding until at least 2 years.

i also heard that the boost to the child's immune system with bf-ing doesn't continue after they are 9 mths? anyone else heard this?

thisisyesterday - about forcing a child to latch on and feed - you'd think anyone who had brought up a toddler would know that would be near impossible if they thought about it!