Extreme Parenting -according to TIME

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

No, not at all.

Funny how people associate these ideas with conservative church culture. In my experience, church people have been more likely to see this as taboo and make [IMO, unhealthy] choices to formula-feed because they feel breastfeeding is inappropriate or distasteful. I've NEVER known a conservative Apostolic woman who breastfeed past the age of 3 or 4 [max].

When we lived in Louisiana, I was surprised at the number of Apostolic women who didn't even consider natural birthing methods or breastfeeding. It was pain meds and formula-fed all the way. I'm not knocking it necessarily, because sometimes those choices are necessary, but the latter in particular is not the best choice for a baby. Sometimes necessary or preferable, but definitely the inferior choice from a purely nutritional perspective.

But you've known liberal women who have? And you've known conservative apostolic woman who nurse UNTIL 3 and 4? You do realize that (many) adults have memories during those years. I can't imagine having a memory of actualy nursing (I was -until about 10 months, so no issues here)...... argh.

And I have NO issues with breast feeding -it IS the healthiest thing to do for a new born and young toddler. I have no revulsion's when I see it in public (other than when the militant types try to be as in-your-face as possible), but when a kid can walk, talk, and run, and even eat a Happy Meal at McDee's and is still nursing, then we have some serious issues.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

But you've known liberal women who have? And you've known conservative apostolic woman who nurse UNTIL 3 and 4? You do realize that (many) adults have memories during those years. I can't imagine having a memory of actualy nursing (I was -until about 10 months, so no issues here)...... argh.

Yes, I personally know several more religiously liberal women (as well as politically liberal) women who breastfed longer. There are many, MANY women on the homeschool forum at which I'm a member who breastfeed longterm, and like I said, most are the crunchy granola types--leaning toward all things natural. When it comes to child-rearing, I lean that way, too. I'm still only talking about the age of 3 or so, though. I haven't personally known ANY women who breastfed past the age of 4--including every Apostolic woman I've ever known, and that is a considerable number of women. Like I said, I've only known a few Apostolic women who have nursed that long--most nurse for a year or less, in my observation. The exception would be Apostolic women from other cultures, in which longterm nursing is more common and acceptable. (Still only talking about young toddlers, though.)

Why are you so bothered by a child potentially having memories of nursing? I'm not sure how that could be damaging in any way.

From a scientific standpoint, our cultural objections are absolutely silly. Look at the animal kingdom--chimp babies nurse for up to 5 years. I don't know of anyone who gets embarrassed watching an animal baby nurse, (in fact, my oldest daughter got up close and personal video of a new calf nursing in our field) but yet people are so embarrassed by a human infant nursing. Physiologically, it's the same process and our bodies are created for the same purpose--producing, nourishing and nurturing infants. The embarrassment, discomfort and claims of psychological damage are completely imposed by western culture. I'm not aware of any scientific data that supports the idea of any child ever being harmed by being breastfed until toddler age--whether they remember it or not.

Of course, I do understand that God also created us as sexual beings, with more understanding than members of the animal kingdom, but it is out of keeping with His design to impose sexuality onto the mother-child bond. I'm trying not to be offensive here, RW, but IMO the controversy surrounding public or "longterm" nursing is mostly male-brained projection onto a nonsexual act. I hesitate to even use the term "longterm" because I consider nursing to the age of 2 or even 3 to be normal. Try to consider this topic without your man-brain in tow. Scientifically. I know. I'm asking a lot.

Also, most children wean themselves sometime in the toddler years or earlier. They move on. My personal opinion is that those who extend nursing much past that are encouraged by their mothers to do so, and that may be where a problem lies. If a mother pushes the child to nurse past the child's need or preference for it, then there is an underlying issue.

[RandyWayne]

MissB, there is no way I can adequately describe why I feel I WOULD be screwed up if I remembered nursing as a 4 year old (or even 3 since I have plenty of memories from that age), not without getting unnecessarily raunchy.

Since I am one to naturally take arguments to their logical extreme, I would ask this question: How old IS too old? (This goes to anyone who has no issues with extended nursing, not just MissB.) I agree that the militant nursers tend to be the granola eating, back to nature types, but what if you came across one of them nursing her 15 year old son? Other than the fact that she would be (and should be) jailed for it, what is the cut off age where it is simply wrong? 7? 10? 12? 15?

[Pragmatist]

Once again, Miss B. is the voice of wisdom.

I breastfed my daughter until she was 3 1/2, never once while we were both standing with her on a stool, though.

It is the norm in other cultures to breastfeed until 3-4 years of age and is life saving in many cases because of lack of sanitation and poor nutrition.

I will disagree with the notion that older children (beyond 4) are being encouraged by the mother to continue. The mothers I've known that are breastfeeding at that point are actively working on weaning, and oftentimes the children have special needs.

[RandyWayne]

Here is a followup article.


Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz1ua4JUfER

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Here is a followup article.


Time magazine cover -- forget the breast, what about the boy?

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...#ixzz1ua4JUfER

I agree with his response on some points. Mostly I agree with idea that the mother is carelessly using her son to make a controversial point, with no respect for his privacy or wellbeing--especially in regard to the future. I don't think it has any bearing at all on the actual validity of breastfeeding through the toddler years. TIME magazine is guilty of prostituting both of them.

I'm not concerned at all about the age of the boy--he's only 3. In our house, 3=still a baby.

My own bias is showing again, but I would personally prefer to hear an intelligent rebuttal from a woman; not a man. Western male brains are the root cause for this upheaval and controversy in the first place--and most likely NOT because THEIR mothers breastfed them too long.

Ironically enough, the response from Dr. Ablow is also guilty of "shock journalism" since he uses the term "be completely recognizable while sucking her nipple" instead of using the more appropriate verbiage of "nursing" or something less provocative.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

Once again, Miss B. is the voice of wisdom.

I breastfed my daughter until she was 3 1/2, never once while we were both standing with her on a stool, though.

It is the norm in other cultures to breastfeed until 3-4 years of age and is life saving in many cases because of lack of sanitation and poor nutrition.

Oddly enough, even in our country with good sanitation and nutrition, breastfeeding is still the nutritionally superior choice. I find it sad that so many women don't embrace this special time with their children. Not only is it better for children, it's healthy for the mother in myriad ways. For me, it was my favorite time with my babies.

I will disagree with the notion that older children (beyond 4) are being encouraged by the mother to continue. The mothers I've known that are breastfeeding at that point are actively working on weaning, and oftentimes the children have special needs.

Good points. Interesting about the children with special needs--I had never considered that.

[MissBrattified]

Another thing to think about: The woman on the cover is a model, meaning she's probably tall. Her son is probably ALSO tall for his age, making him appear older than 3. That was probably intentional on the part of TIME magazine as well. My son wasn't that big until he was 6 or 7.

[RandyWayne]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

Another thing to think about: The woman on the cover is a model, meaning she's probably tall. Her son is probably ALSO tall for his age, making him appear older than 3. That was probably intentional on the part of TIME magazine as well. My son wasn't that big until he was 6 or 7.

Ya, he does look more like 5 (which I am sure was the goal).

And the point in the follow up article that stood out the most was the comment on how this kid will be treated during school and into his teen age years for being the boy sucking on his mom on the cover of TIME.

[Pragmatist]

Originally Posted by RandyWayne

Ya, he does look more like 5 (which I am sure was the goal).

And the point in the follow up article that stood out the most was the comment on how this kid will be treated during school and into his teen age years for being the boy sucking on his mom on the cover of TIME.

I highly doubt his fame will last that long, and if it does, I don't think it will be a serious issue.