[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by Livia

It would be acceptable for "wild humans" to dig a hole every time they wanted a sh1t, but it's not acceptable in "society". Breastfeeding a six year old IS weird, whichever way you spin it and I suspect the mother gets FAR more out of it than the child does.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Solid foods start at 6 to 9 months in combination with milk. This argument is based on completely incorrect logic, Alex. Both occur simultaneously.

6-9 months, not 6-9 years. you just said it yourself. let's also discuss the fact that a woman body isn;t meant to be breast feeding for much more than that 6-9 months. especially if she plans to have more children, which most women do.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I think it's important to teach children to be independent and confident in themselves as quickly as possible. It's important for parents to push their children to learn for themselves, take risks, and be able to provide for themselves eventually, obviously it's also important for parents to also be supportive and to care for children while they are learning.

I believe it's always a good idea to build children's confidence by encouraging them to be as independent as possible. It just makes more sense that a child that is more capable of thinking for themselves and providing for themselves will be more successful.

I believe this long term breast feeding movement by some mothers is not helpful to a child's long term development. i believe it is a form of co-dependency, and co-dependency is a very toxic form of relationships.

Pushing independence onto a child before they are developmentally ready is actually hugely detrimental to long-term self esteem and confidence, believe it or not. Might seem counterintuitive but it's a pretty well established fact.

Pushing children out of their comfort zone before they are ready results in an abnormal anxiety response. Repeating this has the pavlovian effect of creating a link between "unfamiliar situations" and "fear and anxiety", with the net result eventually being an adult who becomes fearful and anxious when confronted with unfamiliar situations (and they probably won't even know why they feel that way).

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Pushing independence onto a child before they are developmentally ready is actually hugely detrimental to long-term self esteem and confidence, believe it or not. Might seem counterintuitive but it's a pretty well established fact.

Pushing children out of their comfort zone before they are ready results in an abnormal anxiety response. Repeating this established has the pavlova effect of creating a link between "unfamiliar situations" and "fear and anxiety", with the net result eventually being an adult who becomes fearful and anxious when confronted with unfamiliar situations (and they probably won't even know why they feel that way).

no, it's not an established fact at all. you need to stop reading Jenny mcarthy and alicia silverstone blogs.

children are not fragile little mommy's babies that those overprotective i love being a mommy, moms would have you think, the evidence actually goes the other way. children are incredibly capable of adapting to independence as long as they are surrounded by supportive parents that don't treat them with cotton wool.

you are just so wrong. it's insane how wrong you are.

[kirklancaster]

Originally Posted by lostalex

I think it's important to teach children to be independent and confident in themselves as quickly as possible. It's important for parents to push their children to learn for themselves, take risks, and be able to provide for themselves eventually, obviously it's also important for parents to also be supportive and to care for children while they are learning.

I believe it's always a good idea to build children's confidence by encouraging them to be as independent as possible. It just makes more sense that a child that is more capable of thinking for themselves and providing for themselves will be more successful.

I believe this long term breast feeding movement by some mothers is not helpful to a child's long term development. i believe it is a form of co-dependency, and co-dependency is a very toxic form of relationships.

So true Alex - Examination of most Serial Killer's childhoods reveal this 'unnatural' type of bond with their mothers.

It's NOT the norm. and it's freaky.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Well yes it's a guess, I don't know her personally.
it's also a guess on your part that there would be psychological stresses to the child if she stopped, we all have had to end feeding whether breast or bottle most before we would maybe have wished to are we a nation of damaged people?.....er, don't answer that.

as I think you maybe realised when typing that Kizzy, there ARE a lot of damaged people (an ever increasing number) in the western world and the vast majority have issues that can be traced back to childhood.

Obviously I'm not saying that it's all tied to weaning though. We have a whole magical toolbox full of ways to mess up our children.

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by kirklancaster

So true Alex - Examination of most Serial Killer's childhoods reveal this 'unnatural' type of bond with their mothers.

It's NOT the norm. and it's freaky.

well, i don't think serial killers are an appropriate pool to study, they are rare and usually have some kind of traumatic brain injury...

it's really not appropriate to compare serial killers to average human beings.

i'm definitely not saying that breast feeding too long leads to people being serial killers.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

6-9 months, not 6-9 years. you just said it yourself. let's also discuss the fact that a woman body isn;t meant to be breast feeding for much more than that 6-9 months. especially if she plans to have more children, which most women do.

You are simply incorrect in your thinking Alex, starting solids doesn't mean stopping milk. Solids start by nine months and breastfeeding should continue until at least 18 months, preferably two years, for all children. You have been indoctrinated by incorrect propaganda, I'm afraid.

[Jake.]

this is the breast thread I've seen all day

[lostalex]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You are simply incorrect in your thinking Alex, starting solids doesn't mean stopping milk. Solids start by nine months and breastfeeding should continue until at least 18 months, preferably two years, for all children. You have been indoctrinated by incorrect propaganda, I'm afraid.

but these women make it sound like as soon as their baby cries for milk she will give it to them. that is not healthy.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

no, it's not an established fact at all. you need to stop reading Jenny mcarthy and alicia silverstone blogs.

children are not fragile little mommy's babies that those overprotective i love being a mommy, moms would have you think, the evidence actually goes the other way. children are incredibly capable of adapting to independence as long as they are surrounded by supportive parents that don't treat them with cotton wool.

you are just so wrong. it's insane how wrong you are.

I'm not a helicopter parent, I have children who have far more independence than most. I fully agree with that aspect of what you're saying, children must be given room to develop, however, extended breastfeeding doesn't necessarily have anything at all to do with that philosophy.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by lostalex

but these women make it sound like as soon as their baby cries for milk she will give it to them. that is not healthy.

I didn't actually read the article so I don't know of that's the case here, and I'm well aware that some are like that, and agree that it becomes an issue (more one of the child becoming generally expectant and demanding). Feeding on demand doesn't need to go on past 6 months but, I would say, the majority of extended breastfeeders probably only do it once or twice a day (morning and night).

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

You are simply incorrect in your thinking Alex, starting solids doesn't mean stopping milk. Solids start by nine months and breastfeeding should continue until at least 18 months, preferably two years, for all children. You have been indoctrinated by incorrect propaganda, I'm afraid.

Alex makes a good point about siblings, she may have had two other children in the last 6yrs the kid would quite literally have had her nose shoved out by now, women are not jersey cows and produce enough milk to adequately feed 1 baby at a time.

[kirklancaster]

JAPANESE MUM OF 6 CHASES 14 YEAR OLD DAUGHTER AT BREASTFEEDING TIME:



It ain't normal.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Alex makes a good point about siblings, she may have had two other children in the last 6yrs the kid would quite literally have had her nose shoved out by now, women are not jersey cows and produce enough milk to adequately feed 1 baby at a time.

Two, actually, humans are more than capable of producing enough milk for two children at once, either twins or when there's a small age gap (I have known plenty of women to be breastfeeding a one year old and a newborn at the same time).

The average gap between children is two to three years, and a minimum of one year. Which places the minimum age of natural weaning at 2 to 4. Which is fairly accurate. People's perceptions of the natural age of weaning are completely distorted by modernity - even more so since the big push on formula (which came hand in hand with a massive anti-breast propaganda campaign).

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Two, actually, humans are more than capable of producing enough milk for two children at once, either twins or when there's a small age gap (I have known plenty of women to be breastfeeding a one year old and a newborn at the same time).

The average gap between children is two to three years, and a minimum of one year. Which places the minimum age of natural weaning at 2 to 4. Which is fairly accurate. People's perceptions of the natural age of weaning are completely distorted by modernity - even more so since the big push on formula (which came hand in hand with a massive anti-breast propaganda campaign).

Personally I don't believe that but that really is my own view if the oldest is hungrier then the mum will struggle to produce sufficient for both I've met a few who've attempted it. if the natural weaning age is 2-4 then by 6 this little lady should by rights be more than ready.

[lostalex]

i feel uncomfortable judging about what women do to care for children. i'm a man so really i can't judge.

i'm only speaking from what i've noticed and or read. i don't think this woman should be persecuted or face any legal consequences, i'm just expressing my personal opinion.

[smudgie]

Poor kid.

It's one thng still sucking on the end of a titty at 6, its a sin and shame when your mother posts you at it for all to see on social media.
I should imagine she will have to have tough little shoulders to carry all the stck she will get from her peers, especially as she gets older.
The age does appear oddly old to me, but then mine were off baby milk of any kind at 6 and 4 months respectively
Ohhhh, and neither of them Have suffered in any way from it.

[user104658]

I guess, relevant to the thread topic, whether this is child driven or driven by the mother worth a personal crusade / not wanting her baby to grow up (both of these things do happen of course)... It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with sexual gratification or "paedophilia".

I maintain that anyone who sees breastfeeding and immediately make some connection to sex, are the ones who have a problem that they should look into.

[smudgie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I guess, relevant to the thread topic, whether this is child driven or driven by the mother worth a personal crusade / not wanting her baby to grow up (both of these things do happen of course)... It certainly has absolutely nothing to do with sexual gratification or "paedophilia".

I maintain that anyone who sees breastfeeding and immediately make some connection to sex, are the ones who have a problem that they should look into.

I agree TS, I don't think it has anything to do with sexual gratification at all.
Perhaps it makes either/both of them feel more secure or loved.
I just think it is wrong to go so public with it , for the child's sake.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by smudgie

I agree TS, I don't think it has anything to do with sexual gratification at all.
Perhaps it makes either/both of them feel more secure or loved.
I just think it is wrong to go so public with it , for the child's sake.

That much I agree with, many parents are far too quick to disregard their children's privacy and autonomy and assume that they have the right to decide for them. That applies to all sorts of things really... I can't stand it when parents think that they "own" their kids.

... I actually know a girl whose nearly 30 and her parents still behave that way.

[Northern Monkey]

Originally Posted by Livia

It would be acceptable for "wild humans" to dig a hole every time they wanted a sh1t, but it's not acceptable in "society". Breastfeeding a six year old IS weird, whichever way you spin it and I suspect the mother gets FAR more out of it than the child does.

Is that not normal?? Oh........
My garden looks like a mole sanctuary

[Vanessa]

Ew, this is gross!

[arista]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

Ew, this is gross!

Yes she is 6

by then should Not
be on a tit sucking

[user104658]

I'm convinced that people are confused and think that nipples are tiny penises. This is the only explanation for the revulsion / outrage.

And don't get me started on people comparing breastfeeding to taking a piss or a ****... I'm usually a Freud skeptic but things like this make me reconsider I've even seen breastmilk compared to semen. It's absolutely insane.

If someone covered my cornflakes in bull spunk I'd be ****ing fuming.