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.
When there is no "clue" those are the mothers who use discretion. It is easy enough to cover the child with a light blanket and breast feed. They now have covers for mother's to put on, allowing discretion and keeps away the unwanted looks.
Then you have mothers, and I have seen it in public, who hold the child in one arm to nurse while using her other hand to "pump" her milk with full breast exposure. Is that really necessary or just being arrogant??
LOL! Yea, I know there are some women out there that give the rest of us bad names. BUT that doesn't mean they are in the majority, they are few and far between and should be treated as the weirdos they are. But most women who breastfeed are not that way and shouldn't have to suffer because of the few who are.
1-3 hours. A normal infant shouldn't get hungry within an hour of being fed til full (no, not even if they're hitting a growth spurt), nor should an infant who isn't sick or unhealthy in some way go longer than 3 or 4 hours without wanting more. NOW you may argue, based on nothing I'm sure.
I think this is another reason some people are opposed to it outright, because they don't trust moms (especially the kinds like the one in the article or those going to these sit-ins) to be as discreet as some of you are suggesting.[/quote]
Who the hell is anyone to "trust moms" or not on this particular issue?? You don't have the right to tell a mom where she can or cannot breastfeed her child. If you're not comfortable with it, then don't do it, and don't look. IF someone is not being discreet about it, what exactly is the problem?? Someone might see a boob being fed on by a baby. OMG! The travesty of it all!!
This is why I am terrified of having another. I am afraid all the good DNA went into the first one, and the second one will turn out to be a monster.
LOL! Not a monster, but the "difficult one" is usually a parents comeuppance for whatever you or your spouse put your parents through. hehehe My oldest is mine, in spades!
Wyndsong, I'll ask you the same question I asked Strel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
How can you call it wrong before even asking my definition of "dramatically"? Where the hell did you get THAT information? Lol, I'll help you out: 1-3 hours. A normal infant shouldn't get hungry within an hour of being fed til full (no, not even if they're hitting a growth spurt), nor should an infant who isn't sick or unhealthy in some way go longer than 3 or 4 hours without wanting more. NOW you may argue, based on nothing I'm sure.
Do you think it makes your case somehow to just mock someone you don't agree with? No, I don't believe infants' appetites vary more than this unless something rare is happening with the child. Nor do I buy that nonsense about my kid being "easy" compared to most. Quite the coincidence that a parent who emphasizes time management skills just so happens to have one of these "easy" children. To believe that, my friend, is laughable.
Wyndsong, I'll ask you the same question I asked Strel.
Do you think it makes your case somehow to just mock someone you don't agree with? No, I don't believe infants' appetites vary more than this unless something rare is happening with the child. Nor do I buy that nonsense about my kid being "easy" compared to most. Quite the coincidence that a parent who emphasizes time management skills just so happens to have one of these "easy" children. To believe that, my friend, is laughable.
LOL@U
What color is the sky on this perfect planet you live on, where kids only get hungry on schedule?
Heh.
Boy you are in for a rough time, and it sounds like you will well deserve it.
Do you think it makes your case somehow to just mock someone you don't agree with? No, I don't believe infants' appetites vary more than this unless something rare is happening with the child. Nor do I buy that nonsense about my kid being "easy" compared to most. Quite the coincidence that a parent who emphasizes time management skills just so happens to have one of these "easy" children. To believe that, my friend, is laughable.
Is it coincidence or laughable that one who is so against breast feeding in public, also expects others to parent (and who knows what else) just as they do?
Is it coincidence or laughable that one who is so against breast feeding in public, also expects others to parent (and who knows what else) just as they do?
No no you misunderstand, it's all about his mad time management skills.
What color is the sky on this perfect planet you live on, where kids only get hungry on schedule?
Heh.
Boy you are in for a rough time, and it sounds like you will well deserve it.
Please read more carefully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by filihok
Is it coincidence or laughable that one who is so against breast feeding in public, also expects others to parent (and who knows what else) just as they do?
You as well.
I'm not against it, but I'm making the argument from experience AND from science itself, that finding yourself in the middle of a public place with a baby screaming from hunger is not inevitable. Deny it if you will. But coming up with variations of phrase "uh-huh" will never get us anywhere.
That something is not perfectly predictable does not mean it's completely UNpredictable. You may be surprised as parents how much of an impact you actually can have on your children, if you put forth the effort. It's the only logical explanation for the experience happening to me, as opposed to "Ya got lucky, Vic!" C'mon people
That is your interpretation. I happen to believe that infants' appetites do not vary dramatically from birth.
<snip>
Why, because I haven't gotten lazy about parenting yet? Because my belief system is more complex than "Ehh, whatever happens"?
Then you don't know what you're talking about. Get a parenting book and read it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
Yet. I suspect you have a lot to learn about parenting. You sound like me before I had a toddler.
Just wait til you have a teen! All this stuff you've ever said (speaking from experience here) like "I'm not going to buy my kid a car", etc goes out the window.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strel
This is why I am terrified of having another. I am afraid all the good DNA went into the first one, and the second one will turn out to be a monster.
Having a second, if you can/want, is good for the parents and good for the kids. However, one is a great family, too!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wyndsong71
LOL! Not a monster, but the "difficult one" is usually a parents comeuppance for whatever you or your spouse put your parents through. hehehe My oldest is mine, in spades!
Karma! My second daughter refused to take a bottle. She worked in a day care with babies, and several of her little charges refused to take bottles. They would cry and cry till their moms showed up at lunch time to feed them. I told her she deserved it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vic 2.0
Wyndsong, I'll ask you the same question I asked Strel.
Do you think it makes your case somehow to just mock someone you don't agree with? No, I don't believe infants' appetites vary more than this unless something rare is happening with the child. Nor do I buy that nonsense about my kid being "easy" compared to most. Quite the coincidence that a parent who emphasizes time management skills just so happens to have one of these "easy" children. To believe that, my friend, is laughable.
You don't know squat about child development.
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.