How do you feel about this?

[gbanton]

I am a midwifery student, and I want to see more women comfortable with breastfeeding and breastfeeding in public. There is no reason to cover a feeding baby. I will not cover up. I refuse to.

To paraphrase what every one on the otherside of this arguement has said - there is nothing wrong with breast-feeding, but there is a place and time for everything. And this is why I will forever object to and shake my head when I see this sort of act out in the wide-open. IMO, it is unacceptable, there is ALWAYS somewhere else out of the public eye - or, your child can wait.

 

[Bird-Mom]

As a trained Health Visitor here in the UK I just wanted to say that we encourage mothers not to allow the child to do this with a bottle or for that matter when BF (if the child is demand bf and doing it constantly). I completely understand the argument for comfort, but when the child has teeth, having milk sitting against them for prolonged periods of time is incredibly bad for them and is probably the worse thing you can do to them. Teeth are only able to withstand three attacks of sugar a day, hence our three meals a day. We teach that if you are going to give your child anything sweet (chocolate, fizzy drinks etc) that you do it all in one hit, not in dribs and drabs throughout the day. Milk (breast and formula) is very high in sugar and is just as bad as juice/fizzy drinks on the teeth. Yes sucking is a response a child does for comfort but the best thing is either a dummy (pacifier) or a thumb (preferbly their own ). Yes there are problems associated with both of these particularly when they get older, but trust me, milk for prolonged periods of time against the teeth is much, much worse. When the child has a full set of teeth, we normally recommend milk be taken with meals, but if it is for comfort before bed ( I would never deny my own son this comfort) then teeth need to be cleaned afterwards (same in the morning).
Sorry to harp on about this, but I have seen what milk can do when demanded and it is not pleasant. Black rotten teeth is embarresing for the child (can lead to low self esteem) and can lead to needing an extraction. Incidently first teeth are very important partly for speech development (not an expert in that area) and also to "show" the second teeth the way to go to become straight.
It really is not a bad thing for a child to realise that it is not always going to get what it is demanding, particularly when it comes to milk. We don't always get what we want in life and there are plenty of healthy alternatives if the child is hungry, which actualy would benefit the child a lot more eg fruit, nuts, seeds etc, (sorry I am being rather general here, I know there are inviduals who have to be careful here).
Breast/bottle feeding should be acceptable anyplace/anywhere, especially if that is the baby's main source of nutrition. Also wanted to mention that just like there is plenty of evidence found into the benefits of prolonged bf, there is plenty of evidence found into the disadvantages of prolonged bf, or perhaps a better way to say it, the benefits into not prolonging bf. What I am saying is that you have to weigh arguments up and work out what is best for you. I will say on a personal note though, we are not animals and neither are we living in a aboriginal tribe, so those arguments are slightly weak. I do however respect everyones choices and just wish I could have bf my son longer then the three months I was able to achieve. I remember when I decided to stop bf (for a multitude of reasons) it was so hard. Everytime I dropped a feed it was like loosing a very close tie. The last one I dropped was just horrible so I can understand why prolonged bf happens.

I just wanted to say that this information is only partially correct. Bottle feeding is not good for the teeth because of the placement of the nipple in the mouth. Sucking on a bottle does indeed cause contact with the teeth and pooling in the mouth. If the teeth are not brushed after the bottle, there is a chance of decay. Hence the nickname "Bottle Rot" or "Bottle Mouth". On the other hand, the nipple placement of the breast is completely different, and the milk does not pool in the mouth. It goes right down the throat.

Fruit is not a good alternative. It is also high in sugar and comes into direct contact with the teeth.

Breasmilk is actually good for the teeth. There has been some research into increased cavities due to extended nursing, but the problem seems to be with children who eat starchy, salty snacks, do not brush, nurse and still no brushing.

Dummies or Pacifiers are not as good as the breast. Thumbs are another story because you cannot take those away. (from a bottle fed baby who sucked her thumb way too long no matter what my mom tried-including bribery)

Just to be clear that I am not making this up-my qualifications besides breastfeeding mom are midwifery student, LLL member, working on my IBCLC (lactation consultant) certification.

 

[Bird-Mom]

To paraphrase what every one on the otherside of this arguement has said - there is nothing wrong with breast-feeding, but there is a place and time for everything. And this is why I will forever object to and shake my head when I see this sort of act out in the wide-open. IMO, it is unacceptable, there is ALWAYS somewhere else out of the public eye - or, your child can wait.

Next time you are hungry, please wait until you can find a toilet upon which to eat and drink.

 

[BamaFan121s]

Yes, the act of nursing a toddler was called "sick and wrong", but I still felt that it was directed at the moms themselves who nurse toddlers.

Must have missed that one. Oh well, that's a call left up to the mother, IMO.

 

[BamaFan121s]

To paraphrase what every one on the otherside of this arguement has said - there is nothing wrong with breast-feeding, but there is a place and time for everything. And this is why I will forever object to and shake my head when I see this sort of act out in the wide-open. IMO, it is unacceptable, there is ALWAYS somewhere else out of the public eye - or, your child can wait.

I'm gonna just agree with you and move on. That's kind of my outtake on it more or less and I really think I would enjoy chatting about something else on another thread more. Thanks to those of you (Bird-Mom) who were adult enough to conduct themselves civiliy with me on this.

 

[gbanton]

Next time you are hungry, please wait until you can find a toilet upon which to eat and drink.

Who says it has to be a toilet? That just seems to convienently be the place in which everyone thinks they have to retreat to as if it were the only place on earth. There is ALWAYS, yes ALWAYS somewhere. Differences aside on that point though, my main gripe though is women not covering up and more specifically having the additude that I will NOT cover up becuase of reason x y and/or z.

 

[flortlebap]

Next time you are hungry, please wait until you can find a toilet upon which to eat and drink.

 

[Miss Inga Depointe]

Who says it has to be a toilet? That just seems to convienently be the place in which everyone thinks they have to retreat to as if it were the only place on earth. There is ALWAYS, yes ALWAYS somewhere. [/I] becuase of reason x y and/or z.

OK, you're at the Magic Kingdom. Where should a nursing mom go? I can think of some quiet places, but that doesn't guarantee that there won't be some easlily offended person there.

 

[NewEnglandDisney]

The rule I've always heard is if you are old enough to ask for it, you're too old to have it.

NED

 

[Miss Inga Depointe]

I think that someday maybe people will become more comfortable with breastfeeding moms, hopefully, but until then, those of you who really grossed out by it, I'd like to know. What are your suggestions for breastfeeding moms at the MK (since we are on a theme park strategy board.) I always found it extremely difficult to find places since I was overly sensitive about not making people around me uncomfortable. I would have been so grateful for a clean lounge with comfy chairs. Those didn't exist in places I went 15 years ago.

Let's use the MK as an example. Where would you have a mom go?

 

[CowboyCO]

I had a sister-in-law that BF her first child until age 4 1/2 , and double breast fed both when second child came two years later. And for those who say that 4 year-olds don't walk up and lift up the shirt looking for the ****ays are wrong. Children only kn ow the social boundaries set up by their parents. Well, at Christmas morning, halfway through opening packages, Her 4 1/2 year old daughter walks over in front of my family, Grandma and Grandpa , lifts up mommy's nightshirt and exposes the ****ays for the whole extended family. When her mom pulled her shirt back down, daughter threw a huge fit.

Knowing my SIL, BF at this age was not for the health and well-being of the daughter, but rather a way to fill a void in her own psyche.

Let's just say I had to edit that year's Christmas tape!

 

[Hixski]

Hixski.
You actually are friends with that woman? Who did that to her children?

Not friends, just "Hi, How you doing neighbors." But back in the day when she was bf her kids we heard all about it. Kids are now 20 down to 14.

 

[Princess Amy]

Let me start, yet once again, stating that I did nurse. And I know what it is like and everything that goes with it. Perhaps I may get flamed for stating my own opinion, as someone so nicely had mentioned above. But heck, it's my opinion. I did not once ever point a finger. I think people are mistaking me for a harsh negative approach.

BF is perfectly fine. Absolutely nothing wrong with it. But many posters just might feel uncomfortable with the decision of having to see it in public. Me for instance never did it in public. That was my choice. If friends were over the house, I would go in the other room. It just was not comfortable to me. I would never ask someone else to go in the other room, because yes, in truth, I do find it wrong to tell someone where they can and can't feed their children. But honestly I think a small harmless topic got way off hand.

I guess what I should just say, so I can make myself clear, is when I go to Disney this October, all you bf moms go about your business and feed your children wherever you deem possible. With all this negative reaction on this thread, I'm just going to turn my head the other way and smile because it is obvious that I would have no choice in the matter anyways.

 

[PatriciaH]

Ok, sorry to go a little off-topic here, but numerous posters have decried the vulgar thought of women's breasts being "sexual objects" ... I hate to be a biology geek here, but from a biological perspective, a human female's breasts have the dual role of feeding the young AND attracting mates. This is not a societal construct, it's a biological one.

PLEASE, allow me to explain ....

Humans are the only animals who walk upright 100% of the time (as opposed to walking on all fours, walking on knuckles, etc.). All other female mammals' "breasts" are not in any way bulbous or protruding or SHOWING to others -- there are for the most part just prominently protruding nipples that the suckling child needs, and the cub/kitten/pup/foal tends to find it just fine by feel rather than by sight. No other mammal has noticable breast tissue (other than perhaps nipples) when not nursing or preparing for nursing. Humans are the only ones. There must be a reason for that, right?

Now, I'll tread lightly here, I don't want to get gross or offend or anything, but we've all been to the zoo (or AK), right? We've all seen female apes and some female 4-legged creatures who have some VERY brightly colored and prominent, um ... body parts when viewed from the rear. These body parts, such as they are, serve as a visual sexual attractant for potential mates.

Because humans don't walk bent over at the waist, it would be biologically "inefficient" to have female bodies that spend a lot of valuable resources to produce body parts that generally are not visible during normal activity (even while unclothed). In other words, if a human woman's "parts" looked like an ape's, it would be a waste of biological resources because that part of the body would never been seen while walking or standing even if the woman was nude. Similarly, a female gorilla's or chimpanzee's (or zebra's) hypothetical prominent and protruding breasts would not be noticed by males of the species because the chest area of those animals is not normally visible for any length of time.

At least one gender of all animals have some visual physical sexual attractant. Over time, the human female body produced larger breasts (relative to a typical man's) because that part of the body is prominently seen when humans walk upright. Biologically speaking, there is no need for the extra fat tissue that makes breasts protrude from the chest -- a rooting baby can, by instinct, find and latch onto a nipple without all the extra breast tissue. I've never heard, from a biological perspective, that babies of "larger" women have an easier time nursing and sustaining nursing than babies of who have almost no "extra" breast tissue.

Regardless of what our society has or has not done to make any person or part of a person a sexual object, there ARE sexual attractants even in the human world. But because we have also been gifted with bigger brains and greater intelligence than the rest of the animal world, we don't have to be 100% beholden to anatomy, instincts or unconscious drives.

Thank you! I was going to say boy ladies if you think that breasts are only for breast feeding "period" I feel sorry for you and your DH's.

 

[CleveRocks]

Bottle feeding is not good for the teeth because of the placement of the nipple in the mouth. Sucking on a bottle does indeed cause contact with the teeth and pooling in the mouth. If the teeth are not brushed after the bottle, there is a chance of decay. Hence the nickname "Bottle Rot" or "Bottle Mouth". On the other hand, the nipple placement of the breast is completely different, and the milk does not pool in the mouth. It goes right down the throat.

Actually, the main cause of "bottle rot" is the terrible and terribly lazy habit some parents have of giving their kids a bottle to feed to themselves while in the crib. This is the biggest cause of pooling of milk, which in turn promotes dental caries.

 

[Princess Amy]

Wow people! I hate to start a topic on bottle-feeding

Quick question though. People are saying that women can walk around half naked and nothing gets done about it right? All kinds of things hanging out. And it was stated then what is so wrong with breast feeding, if people can do that? So in other words you are relating it to something we don't really want to see (thongs, breasts popping out of shirts). So in other words if people don't want to see this women with those exposures, why would people want to see bf exposure. I'm just questioning. Made me laugh. Hmmm....

 

[katytrott]

I just wanted to say that this information is only partially correct. Bottle feeding is not good for the teeth because of the placement of the nipple in the mouth. Sucking on a bottle does indeed cause contact with the teeth and pooling in the mouth. If the teeth are not brushed after the bottle, there is a chance of decay. Hence the nickname "Bottle Rot" or "Bottle Mouth". On the other hand, the nipple placement of the breast is completely different, and the milk does not pool in the mouth. It goes right down the throat.

Fruit is not a good alternative. It is also high in sugar and comes into direct contact with the teeth.

Breasmilk is actually good for the teeth. There has been some research into increased cavities due to extended nursing, but the problem seems to be with children who eat starchy, salty snacks, do not brush, nurse and still no brushing.

Dummies or Pacifiers are not as good as the breast. Thumbs are another story because you cannot take those away. (from a bottle fed baby who sucked her thumb way too long no matter what my mom tried-including bribery)

Just to be clear that I am not making this up-my qualifications besides breastfeeding mom are midwifery student, LLL member, working on my IBCLC (lactation consultant) certification.

I'm sure you know much more about this than I do. I honestly don't know a great deal professionally about prolonged bf, it really doesn't come up that often, you obviously have done much more research than I have.

My post was actually quoting someone who mentioned seeing bottle feeding (on a toddler) as a comfort method as something that was ok, and I wanted to make a point that it really is not. I know you agree with me on this. I know you are right when it comes to the different mouth positions and how the milk goes straight down with bf, however, as a health visitor I know this doesn't automatically happen with an older breast feeder, as they will be doing what toddlers do eg not concentrating on feeding. In theory I know you are right, but in practice there are times the milk does pool. I may be wrong on this (not looked into this) but I'm not 100% convinced that breast milk is good for the teeth, particularly as you say, when in contact with other foodstuffs. It is unlikely a child will be able to brush there teeth when out and about and snacking. I'm not saying you shouldn't extend breastfeeding or that breastfeeding shoud'nt be done in public.

You are right about fruit being bad for the teeth, I actually meant that if you are going to give a child a snack because they are hungry, you may as well use the opportunity to provide something much more nutricious than milk (yes I know milk is nutricious, but most of the time, the child will have their full requirement of dairy and will need to meet their requirement in other areas), as you were going to cause an attack on the teeth anyway by giving milk.

Also when I mentioned dummies, I was talking as an alternative to a comforter in regards to milk pooling in the mouth. There is no doubt that a dummy would be better in this circumstance, however if the child has only used a nipple/teat as a comfort source, by the time they are a toddler, there is not much point starting thumb/dummy. I completely agree that both the dummy/thumb cause problems of their own, but if a child is already doing one of these, there is no point adding to them by encouraging the potential for rotting teeth. If a toddler (lets say a bottlefed toddler for this arguments sake) wants the comfort of sucking, not for hunger, I would suggest encouraging the child not to suck from a bottle but to use a dummy/thumb if they are used to that. Not only does drinking milk for comfort lead to rotting, it can also fill the child up leaving no room or appetite for other valuable nutrients. You'll be surprised how many parents have a nightmare at the dinner table and claim there child is picky eater. Quite often when the family is suported in weaning the child off of milk as a comfort, the dinner time becomes a much easier and fun experience. If the child is already using thumb/dummy you may as well use them to eliminate some crisis' when you are going to have the crisis of weaning them off the thumb/dummy anyway

 

[vatmark]

Thank you! I was going to say boy ladies if you think that breasts are only for breast feeding "period" I feel sorry for you and your DH's.

I don't think anyone said that breasts were only for breast feeding period. Their main importance is for feeding an infant. There secondary function is sexual.

What's sick is anyone that would look at a nursing mom and think it is sexual.

Annie

 

[sharibrat]

But ask yourself this, would this argument work in reverse? Say you have a 16 year old daugher who decided she's going to wear a very skimpy, revealing bikini top that leaves little to the imagination to the MK one day. Do you let her wear it? I mean, it's coving about the same about of skin as bf, right? So it's OK?

I do not see any comparison here at all. Breastfeeding is a natural way of feeding a child. Nobody 'hides' to bottle feed or spoon feed kids. Wearing a skimpy shirt in the teens can promote promiscuity and is nothing at all the same.

I don't understand the desire to do it...but that is just ME.

What is to not understand?? A child is hungry, it needs fed. Especially for an infant......I choose to feed my infant immediately when he is hungry, not in another 15 minutes when it is convenient for me or I have walked to a nursing station.

Which by the way, I used a 'nursing station' at Sesame Place this past weekend. DISGUSTING. I was so pleased to see they had a designated area.....all it was, was a curtained off area in the BATHROOM with a hard chair. It stank so bad, I would MUCH rather nurse my baby out in the open on a bench under a tree than to smell other's bathroom functions. Would you eat in a bathroom? Would you bottlefeed in a bathroom???

 

[keishashadow]

More confused by the minute...

So, after the age of 2, 3 or 4, it appears to be solely a comforting/bonding benefit to let your child dictate when to latch on?

Are these toddlers (who are in the pre-school category) to have their every desire immediately fulfilled? Yes, it's hard for small children to wait in line @ WDW too but, it's unacceptable to head to the front proclaiming your child just cannot wait. How hard is it to walk to a bench, sit down & give your child a drink of water while you do the same, lets call it a time out. BTW water is very good for all humans.

BF is nothing new, no special cachet or status that I know of...other than the initial immunity benefits & nourishment needed in first year or so of life. I honestly cannot understand why there is hesitation to let a child develop his own sense of self (which includes the ability to self-soothe via their own coping methods - blanket, binky, etc.). Part of being a parent is teaching your child how to fit into society as a whole.

Reciprocal respect is all that's needed. Don't flash my family & we won't stare @ you either...it is rather shocking for a pre-teen or teenage boy who doesn't have younger siblings.