PS my previous reply sounds slightly rude, I didn't mean it to

Hi Nickcy

I think that the ick factor comes from a held belief that only babies are breastfed,and if an older child is than that is against the norm. We have lovely cuddly images of a mother nursing her baby at her breast, but for an older child would be considered against the norm. I think that bitty bitty would come to mind then!

quote:

Originally posted by oranjeboom:
I think this 'ick factor' comes in due to it not being seen as a normal thing any more. Also, taking a look at the animal kingdom, their young don't feed any longer than is necessary for them to go onto proper solid food and move away from their parents at a natural rate. Not sure why humans are so awkward with it all.
People seem to swing from "meh, get it away from me and make it sleep somewhere else as soon as possible" to having a child way past weaning age stuck to their chest.
My children weaned themselves so I can't possibly comment on what I'd have done if they'd not stopped when they did. I still think I'd have made them stop by age 2 or so but please remember, this was in a time when that was considered to be the usual age to have them weaned.

Wanting to wean them by this age isn't a bad thing: different people are different and once the child is not getting any added nutritional benefit I don't think wanting to stop is anything to beat yourself up about.

quote:

Originally posted by barbie86:


Wanting to wean them by this age isn't a bad thing: different people are different and once the child is not getting any added nutritional benefit I don't think wanting to stop is anything to beat yourself up about.

That's kinda what I meant. Western children generally won't be getting anything nutritionally beneficial that they can't get from a balanced diet. That's why I don't see the point in carrying on for longer than a couple of years or why you'd want to, they're a little person then - not a baby who's relying on it. After that it just seems like some extended attachment rather than extended feeding. I may be wrong in my thinking.
Question for the FF mothers, how long until you stop feeding them formula? Or do you carry on giving them a bottle of formula milk/dummy until they're 8?

quote:

Originally posted by oranjeboom:

quote:

Originally posted by barbie86:


Wanting to wean them by this age isn't a bad thing: different people are different and once the child is not getting any added nutritional benefit I don't think wanting to stop is anything to beat yourself up about.

That's kinda what I meant. Western children generally won't be getting anything nutritionally beneficial that they can't get from a balanced diet. That's why I don't see the point in carrying on for longer than a couple of years or why you'd want to, they're a little person then - not a baby who's relying on it. After that it just seems like some extended attachment rather than extended feeding. I may be wrong in my thinking.
Question for the FF mothers, how long until you stop feeding them formula? Or do you carry on giving them a bottle of formula milk/dummy until they're 8?

This is exactly it. The argument for it in terms of nutrition/development of immunity etc is void, it just doesn't apply in this country (which is why I felt references to the developing world were irrelevant because they do it for necessity, its not comparable)

HOWEVER, that doesn't mean to say that if a child hasn't weaned themselves that this is wrong. Children develop very differently and parents parent differently: one child may have weaned themselves well before they reach two, another may not have fully 'let go' at 5. Which IMO isn't a problem as long as the mother is fine with it, and as long as the child is developing normally: I would be concerned if the child was being 'babied' as breastfeeding wouldn't help, and its important that by the time they go to school they have an element of independence.

Also as you say it's unlikely parents would still have their child drinking formula milk from a bottle at the age of 7: this would probably be regarded by most in a similar way to breastfeeding at this age

Just to re-iterate though that if the mother is happy and the child is happy and not being babied I don't think there's anything wrong. It might not be the norm but that doesn't make it wrong.

Breastfeeding until self-weaning is not "Extended Breastfeeding", but "Natural Term Breaastfeeding". Anything that inolves actively reducing the time your baby/child nurses is premature weaning, and something that is only really practiced in the West.

I guess that it is each to their own really. I personally would not feel comfortable with an older child at my breast. After a certain age, the health benefits are not as much as with a baby so no point really! You would not still feed formula to a child so why still bf!

Hi oranjeboom in reply to FF and weaning..... I was told that my son should be 'off the bottle' by 12 months. And that he didn't need formula past then. He could have cow's milk on cereal at around 9 months.
However, he weaned himself from the bottle at around 9 months anyway and had his milk from a free flow cup.
It was always a battle to get him to feed (BF was a problem that some people know about on here. And so was bottle feeding after the age of about 6 months)
I didn't find it a bad thing that he no longer wanted the bottle, as I know many toddlers and children sill have bottles up to the age of 5 or more. And this was all the hard work of 'getting him off the bottle' done for me.
I know that the same advice should stand for a dummy, 12 months is usually the time to start weaning a baby off it. As this is where the need and attachment for the dummy starts for comfort, rather than as a soother.
My 2 have not had a dummy though, so I didn't have to cross that bridge.

In referance to this Continuum Momma



Hope I don't offend anyone, I don't want tp upset people.

quote:

Originally posted by Continuum Momma:
Breastfeeding until self-weaning is not "Extended Breastfeeding", but "Natural Term Breaastfeeding". Anything that inolves actively reducing the time your baby/child nurses is premature weaning, and something that is only really practiced in the West.

By that definition doesn't that mean that 'extended breastfeeding' is breastfeeding after the child has weaned: and surely that isn't right? If the child has weaned themselves then they no longer need or want to breastfeed: in which case wouldn't it be wrong to continue to do so? Please clarify.

I don't know what happened to my post earlier, maybe someone didn't like my links.
Basically I don't understand the whole argument.... if a 12 year old still wants to feed .. is that ok if they have not 'self weaned' as it is classed as natural term. I watched a program abou a mother who was BF her daugter of 10. I have no problem with it, it's up to the mother and child. But surely there is a reason for why a 10 year old is till BF other than just nurtitional needs. If it is purely down to emotions.... then surely there must be something deep rooted within the child that makes them feel the need to BF past a certain age.If it is just for comfort, will a cuddle not do just as good?
I am only curious as I have not known anyone who as BF past 2. Mostly because they have had all their nutritional and emotional needs fulfilled with out BF.

quote:

Originally posted by barbie86:

quote:

Originally posted by Continuum Momma:
Breastfeeding until self-weaning is not "Extended Breastfeeding", but "Natural Term Breaastfeeding". Anything that inolves actively reducing the time your baby/child nurses is premature weaning, and something that is only really practiced in the West.

By that definition doesn't that mean that 'extended breastfeeding' is breastfeeding after the child has weaned: and surely that isn't right? If the child has weaned themselves then they no longer need or want to breastfeed: in which case wouldn't it be wrong to continue to do so? Please clarify.

I am using the term "weaned" in the sense of stopping breastfeeding, not as in eating sold foods. The two are different, even though the term is the same, the meaning isn't!!

So, no, in truth, there is no such thing as "Extended Breastfeeding", if a baby/child breastfeeds for as long as they feel the need to and stops when they want to this is "Natural Term Breastfeeding". It is actually impossible to force a baby/child to breastfeed, human nipples are soft, they can't be poked into a baby/child's mouth, so the baby/child has to want to nurse. This means you can't continue to breastfeed if the child has self-weaned!

I understand that CM, but what if they don't self wean? or is this not common?
I understand you were not referring to weaning onto solid foods, as we are mostly referring to toddlers and young children here, and they would have already be taking solid food long before.
So basically there is no such thing as extended BF. If there was an age that Health Professionals would reccomend, weather it be 4 or 5 years old. Then there would be such thing. But a child will nurse as long as they like. And it should be considered as normal until they choose to stop.

So 'extended breastfeeding' is a term that has been coined to mean breastfeeding beyond the expected age in Western culture (ie past toddlerdom). We do need some sort of language of differentiation, as 'natural term bf' can end anywhere from around a year.

Perhaps it may seem a little perjorative, like using the term 'premature weaning' to mean adult-led, as opposed to child-led, weaning.