U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2015, 04:05 PM
 
2,198 posts, read 1,227,272 times
Reputation: 2859

Advertisements

*babies can get hot
*it's hard to see to get the right latch
*moms can get hot
*ime, it's way more obvious a woman is nursing when baby is covered up than when mom does it discreetly without a cover (but it can depend on baby positioning and mother's clothing)

Eating is a social activity for many people- babies through geriatric populations. It's hard to be social when one of you is under a blanket.


I do understand the desire to cover up some individuals while they are feeding. I can think of several adult eaters I wish would be under a blanket while eating in public. I just haven't ever had that feeling when I see babies nursing.

 
Old 12-19-2015, 04:58 PM
 
Location: Geneva, IL
12,976 posts, read 11,788,166 times
Reputation: 14677
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryleeII View Post
Ladies, please---lets stop calling them boobs". I find the term childish, ignorant, and just plain stupid
If you want to be taken seriously, speak correctly! I went for a mammogram and the technician actually referred to them as "boobs". I refused the mammogram, and asked to speak to a supervisor, who apologized. The tech actually said "ok, lets take a picture of your boobies"


Again, ladies, they are BREASTS, not boobs. If you want respect and to be treated like a lady, act like one!

I most certainly do not want to be treated like a "lady", thanks anyway. I'll call them whatever I want, it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand.
 
Old 12-19-2015, 05:04 PM
 
4,750 posts, read 3,314,876 times
Reputation: 4919
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird View Post
So the baby should go hungry until the graduation was over?

I don't really mind that photo. It's a little silly but it's not showing more then a lot of bikini tops and she doesn't have to flash the nipple like you would if you take it alllll the way out.
Of course, the child shouldn't go hungry. Let me clarify my point-of-view. I have never been apart of or attended a graduation ceremony where the graduate's child was allowed to sit with them. The graduates generally sit together and enter/exit with one another. No one was allowed to go up to them during the ceremony.
 
Old 12-19-2015, 05:49 PM
 
23,903 posts, read 31,130,282 times
Reputation: 28539
Quote:
Originally Posted by HighFlyingBird View Post
So the baby should go hungry until the graduation was over?

I don't really mind that photo. It's a little silly but it's not showing more then a lot of bikini tops and she doesn't have to flash the nipple like you would if you take it alllll the way out.
I don't think she was advocating that, was she? I think the picture was absurd, and she certainly could have fed her child without showing off her full breast, in a damn picture to the public, no less. Yanno women have been breastfeeding children, outside of the home, for many years now without issue. I never had one single problem doing it, in public if necessary, 22 years ago. Why so many have a need to be militantly on display now is ridiculous.
 
Old 12-19-2015, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Florida
4,080 posts, read 3,060,892 times
Reputation: 8593
The AAP is for American mothers and they also recommend nursing into the second year and beyond as mutually desired by the child and mother.

The recommendation has nothing to do with a lack of nutrients in third-world countries. Breastmilk absolutely continues to provide nutrients and immune-boosting substances to babies. The natural age of weaning in humans is based more on how other primates handle weaning rather than on how dogs and cats do. Like it or not, humans are animals/mammals/primates. There's nothing wrong with weaning at a year, but there's also nothing wrong with continuing through the toddler and preschool years (or even longer, if mutually desired).
 
Old 12-19-2015, 06:46 PM
 
Location: Maryland
912 posts, read 591,973 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Metaphysique View Post

Solids and table food during the first year is a supplement to breastmilk or formula. It is not meant to replace either, and breastmilk can make up the bulk of a toddler's nutrition after the first year.


Actually, not all peds give the same recommendations. Not in the least. The main reason why formula may be discouraged or told to discontinue it is because it becomes cost prohibitive after the first year when other forms of nutrition are cheaper. Many peds recommend or encourage 16-20 oz of cow's milk after a year. I'm sorry, but you can't possibly logically argue another mammal's milk is preferable to one's own, assuming a woman is still breastfeeding. If a baby is formula fed then cow's milk is a suitable option, and far cheaper than second stage formula, but for those who breastfeed beyond a year, there's no benefit, absolutely none, to giving cow's milk over human milk.
You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

If solids aren't introduced early enough, it can cause a speech delay which can cause a reading comprehension delay which, if not corrected, can require special ed. I know firsthand. My son has been in feeding and speech therapy most of his life.

The number one thing the ped wanted was him on solids on a typical timeline to avoid a speech delay. He had oral motor issues which prevented his ability to eat solids so he got a delayed start eating. Guess what? Now he needs speech therapy because of that late start eating solids.

Soooo.. are you a doctor? If not, I'll listen to the medical professionals at Johns Hopkins, Kennedy Krieger Inst., Mt. Washington Pediatric Hospital, Loyola Clinic, and Infants & Toddlers Program. They are all in agreement that you are wrong.

And no, breastmilk can not make up the bulk of nutrition after the first year. Yes, you can nurse in the second year. No, it should not be the bulk of their nutrition. It can't be. That's why they have you introduce solids at 1yo. Their need is greater than the nutrients that can be acquired through milk alone (breast or otherwise). Also, most children begin displaying the signs that they are ready for solids before 1yo. To deny their natural developmental rhythm is not right. Again, Hopkins says you are wrong.

Where on earth do you people get this stuff? I swear some people on here make stuff up just to hear themselves talk.
 
Old 12-19-2015, 07:01 PM
 
Location: Maryland
912 posts, read 591,973 times
Reputation: 1078
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnotherTouchOfWhimsy View Post
The AAP is for American mothers and they also recommend nursing into the second year and beyond as mutually desired by the child and mother.

The recommendation has nothing to do with a lack of nutrients in third-world countries. Breastmilk absolutely continues to provide nutrients and immune-boosting substances to babies. The natural age of weaning in humans is based more on how other primates handle weaning rather than on how dogs and cats do. Like it or not, humans are animals/mammals/primates. There's nothing wrong with weaning at a year, but there's also nothing wrong with continuing through the toddler and preschool years (or even longer, if mutually desired).
Psychologically there's a *huge* problem with it. A pediatric dentist would have a fit with it too due to cavities and misaligned teeth structure (and your orthodontist will love you when your child needs braces when the adult teeth come in wrong because of the damaged baby teeth).

Most children nursing at that age are doing it for psychological / security blanket issues. If they need that, they have issues that need the help of a professional because they don't have proper stress coping mechanisms.

This is the same reason we don't see preschoolers walking around with binkies, unless there's something wrong. Yes, I get that some children need it (ASD children, for example). But an otherwise healthy child should have been taught coping skills long before this age so that the breast and binkie could be weaned.

Professionals also don't recommend nudity of adults around children after a certain age because it can be confusing for them.

I think even just one Child Pysch. 101 class would do wonders for several on this thread.
 
Old 12-19-2015, 07:32 PM
 
Location: The point of no return, er, NorCal
6,894 posts, read 4,221,404 times
Reputation: 8875
Quote:
Originally Posted by UserName14289 View Post
You are wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

If solids aren't introduced early enough, it can cause a speech delay which can cause a reading comprehension delay which, if not corrected, can require special ed.
lol

Please cite a credible source. There is a big difference between introducing solids for experimenting with new tastes and textures and relying on solids for primary nutrition. 4-6 months is the suggested guideline for introducing solids. Some babies are not ready until later. Some simply have little interest in solids until they decide they're ready.

Quote:
I know firsthand. My son has been in feeding and speech therapy most of his life.
Your son is not evidence or data. It is anecdotal, and therefore cannot be extrapolated to the majority or whole for a host of factors.

Quote:
The number one thing the ped wanted was him on solids on a typical timeline to avoid a speech delay. He had oral motor issues which prevented his ability to eat solids so he got a delayed start eating. Guess what? Now he needs speech therapy because of that late start eating solids.
Quote:
Soooo.. are you a doctor? If not, I'll listen to the medical professionals at Johns Hopkins, Kennedy Krieger Inst., Mt. Washington Pediatric Hospital, Loyola Clinic, and Infants & Toddlers Program. They are all in agreement that you are wrong.
I still can't figure out why you assume your experience makes for evidence or data. It doesn't. Your appeal to authority, based on personal account and not data, is not evidence.

Quote:
And no, breastmilk can not make up the bulk of nutrition after the first year. Yes, you can nurse in the second year.
Is this where I say "Milk, of the human variety, or another species', in conjunction with table food, in the amounts desired, can sustain a toddler into the second year because many have had children thrive with no problem."? Some 1 year old toddlers, talking young toddlers, not a 20 month old, have huge appetites and love food, and some others, many others, may only be mildly interested, or interested in certain things on certain occasion. Since all babies are different, have unique needs and tastes, and other factors are present, there are no absolutes. Many young toddlers eventually develop a healthy, robust appetite by 18-24 months, and even then there can still be struggles. It seemed like my 9 year old ate like a bird when she was younger, and still does at times, but she's always thrived, and has never been below 50% for weight.

I don't use my children as "evidence" for what exists or is a reality for other people and their kids, but I can surely say that none of my four children had robust appetites at 12 months, or 13, 14, 15 months. My second daughter had SPD, which meant texture sensitivities. She ate what she could, what interested her, and received goat's/cow's milk (16 oz) and breastmilk. Minus the SPD, that has been the case with all of my kids, and they've all thrived with no issue.

Quote:
No, it should not be the bulk of their nutrition. It can't be. That's why they have you introduce solids at 1yo.
The guideline is 4-6 months or when the infant is developmentally ready. I introduced solids between 5-6 months with my children, but their interest was lukewarm until 8-10 months. That is to say, aside from occasional tastes, they'd rather play with it than eat it.

Quote:
Their need is greater than the nutrients that can be acquired through milk alone (breast or otherwise). Also, most children begin displaying the signs that they are ready for solids before 1yo. To deny their natural developmental rhythm is not right. Again, Hopkins says you are wrong.

Where on earth do you people get this stuff? I swear some people on here make stuff up just to hear themselves talk.
You have reading comprehension issues and lack an understanding of context. Not every 12, 13, 14 or 15 month old is going to be scarfing down full-on meals in conjunction with milk of whatever variety. There are a lot of young toddlers, I'm not talking about two year olds here, who develop an interest in full meals, at their own pace. Please tell me how you convince a 13 month old to eat when they're uninterested. Do you shove their mouth with food, or assume he/she will let you know when they're hungry and when they're full?

I gave my 13 month old avocado, salmon and bananas for dinner tonight. I put it on her tray and she fed herself and when she was finished she shook her head and proceeded to play with it. I decide what and when and she decides how much. Simple as that.

When I say breastmilk can sustain a child into the second year, that is in the context of the beginning stages, early toddlerhood, when their appetites are still developing and maturing. Context is key.
 
Old 12-19-2015, 07:44 PM
 
15,743 posts, read 13,167,427 times
Reputation: 19636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jayerdu View Post
What? You just stated in an earlier post that you have NEVER seen it done and basically called people liars for saying that they have seen it done.

Btw, I agree - the majority of women do breastfeed like pic#2 in public and if people have a problem with that then I am in your camp - they need to get over it. What I don't understand is how people think it is too much to ask breastfeeding women to be aware that there are other people who might not be comfortable with whole boobage. That, I guess, is my point. I am 100% comfortable with boobs. They don't offend me. I personal could give 2 sh*ts about it. However, at the same time, I understand that some others are not and will be respectful of them (up to a certain point - namely, not expose my entire breast to feed).
Just to be clear this was such an unusual situation and photo that it made the news. So clearly it is not the norm.


And I ll be even more blunt, I don't care what makes strangers comfortable. Some people are uncomfortable around the obese, or the elderly, or people of other races. That is their problem, same with those who feel the need to shame someone who bared about as much breast as you would see at the beach. Breastfeeding mothers owe society no more or less than those who bottle feed.
 
Old 12-19-2015, 07:48 PM
 
10,090 posts, read 6,489,790 times
Reputation: 23714
Good lord. I expected the anti boob folk to come out. Instead we got the momma's milk nazis.

Fun

I knew it would come to one or the other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top