Comments on: Behind the TIME Cover: Most Human Societies Don’t Get Our Breastfeeding Hang-up

By: Ari

Ari — Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:34:58 +0000

I admit to finding breastfeeding past a certain point strange. I don’t have much of a logical argument. It’s simply that I associate breastfeeding to a period in the child’s life when they aren’t quite a person yet: they’re a little thing, full of potential, but not someone I can talk with, not someone I can quite educate just yet. A proto-person.

Then the child starts to become more of a person who interacts more extensively with their environment and I, who understands my words and why I’m scolding them (well to some extent), who puts logical concepts on their games. I would honestly feel very uncomfortable with not only showing such a person, who fits more and more in the “people” category – the one I don’t show my nude body to – but letting their mouth on it.

If I were going to breastfeed, I would probably stop when I’d feel that my child is becoming more of a person. But that’s all just me and my weird ideas.

Anyway, this is not scientific, but it sounds logical to me: the sexualisation of breasts does play a part in our societies’ early stopping of breastfeeding, but I think there’s another factor. The physical aspects aside, in less “western” societies, don’t children stay “babies” for a longer time? What I mean by that is that our children tend to start learning the ways of society, and also more abstract knowledge, earlier than those in the hunter-gatherer communities described in the article. Am I right?

After all, for the child’s cognitive and psychosocial abilities to develop optimally, we are encouraged to start teaching them, little by little, as much as possible, and as early as possible (without of course sacrificing a loving environment), about various things, through games, or by making them socialise early.

I want to remind it – I’m no expert nor do I have a source – but isn’t it reasonable to think that maybe the earlier psychosocial development of our children is linked to an earlier weaning in some way? Perhaps this, ehm, perpetuation of the “baby” state, even though it’s occasional, is not compatible with an early psychosocial development.

Ah, just one thing. Someone mentioned that “they aren’t called milk teeth for nothing”. Firstly, it’s not certain why they’re call that way; it could also be because they’re whiter than adult teeth. Secondly, the first of them do not fall before 6-8 years of age, and all adult teeth are not there before 10 years in the earliest. None of these are logical times to stop breastfeeding. So whilst nothing shows it’s appropriate to stop breastfeeding when they appear, there’s no clue that they might be an indication to indeed breastfeed.

By: Shelley Steva

Shelley Steva — Sun, 27 May 2012 20:30:51 +0000

I breastfed for one year for one child: eighteen months for another. There is no question that I felt pressure to stop with my second child- but I have no doubt that the child would have been glad to go longer. Did they benefit from the nursing? I believe so- both are slender and don’t suffer from allergies. Their mother is the opposite. I just wish that our society was more set up and accepting
so that more new mothers would start and continue with this beneficial activity!

By: Stanley Tolle

Stanley Tolle — Sun, 27 May 2012 18:47:48 +0000

One other thing. The suppression of ovulation by breast feeding is related to breast feeding continuing through the night. This from a Scientific American article on the subject. The article stated that a hormone was produced from the breast during breast feeding that suppressed the production of Follicle-Stimulating Hormone by the pituitary. This action would become less effective as breast feeding continued. It was not the weight of the women that was as much a factor as the time between breast feedings. As the infant starts to sleep during the night there is sufficient time for Follicle-Stimulating Hormone to be produced and the woman will ovulate. Essentially if the women could produce sufficient breast milk during the day to enable the infant to sleep through the night then the women would become fertile again. Kind of a biological protective mechanism to insure that a women would be physically ready to support another pregnancy. A mechanism that could brake down if there was a short term high caloric intake. Like at feeding stations in famine situations. Of course, women who are, maybe over fed, would also be able to breast feed their infants enough to allow then to sleep overnight sooner, so they would also start ovulate sooner.

By: Stanley Tolle

Stanley Tolle — Sun, 27 May 2012 18:05:49 +0000

I have followed this issue with interest for a number of years. What I have found interesting is how resistant I have found women friends to the idea of longer breast feeding periods. It seems that they attempt to wean their babies as soon as possible. I think this behavior might have some evolutionary support behind it. One of the things that breast feeding does is reduce the fertility of the mother. Particularity if the women is working hard during the day and is breast feeding several times during the night. Women who are in a caloric rich environment who could wean their infants earlier would have an evolutionary advantage in producing more offspring. I think this effect maybe what we are seeing in our Western and Agricultural societies. Birth periods in these societies approach close to once a year while in the more traditional societies birth periods are as long as 4 years. This is not to say that longer breast feeding periods are not heather for the infant but it may explain why the breast feeding periods become shorter is societies where food is in abundance.

By: Fran Mayes

Fran Mayes — Sat, 26 May 2012 22:43:31 +0000

Cows milk grows huge-bodied calves, human milk grows big brains. All this discussion of breast feeding leaves out a huge factor: the alternative. Has anyone said formula is better for babies or mothers? Formula companies keep “improving” their product, but it will always be inferior to breast milk.

By: Maxine

Maxine — Fri, 25 May 2012 15:24:18 +0000

La Leche League was a great influence and support for me when I was nursing my children in 1966 and 1968. Hardly anyone was doing it, but I felt it was the right thing to do (I was very non-conformist). My first was nursed until nine months, the second for 2 years, and the third, born in 1979, was nursed until she was 3 (at bedtime). From La Leche League, I learned how to nurse unobtrusively, and did it almost anywhere. Fortunately, I didn’t have to work, so no problem with pumping, etc. Women who do so are very admirable.

By: Glenno

Glenno — Fri, 25 May 2012 07:27:01 +0000

I am not sure I agree with the premise that justification or criticism of prolonged breast feeding hinges on a comparative study of all primates. It is as easy to pick holes in that argument as it is to pick the insects from another ape’s back. Oh, I forgot, we humans don’t do that nowadays.

It seems that there is significant diversity between societies, and even within societies, concerning this issue. The factors impinging on a mother’s decision are not purely biological. They also include economic factors, vanity, sexual availability, and a whole range of other complex factors that may vary between individual mothers, let alone societies or species. And of course we don’t want to forget the other person with an interest in the decision -the child. He/she may no longer seek to be breast fed at some point. Does that make his/her decision wrong?

The one thing that I believe was clear from the original cover photo was the intention to shock the reader, with the likely side benefit of generating controversy and increasing sales for a publication that has not been doing as well in recent years. It is a pity that the discussion of what should be a reasonable topic had to be tainted by what to me was a graphic display intended to shock with its psycho-sexual overtones. Kudos to those of you who have taken this unfortunate starting point and focused discussion on so many meaningful aspects.

By: Al Bundy

Al Bundy — Fri, 25 May 2012 03:01:42 +0000

@Yacko, and what a “strange” way for you to have been born from the unholy end of your mother’s body. There is nothing “strange” about breastfeeding a young child! It is not stranger than, say, keeping them clean, dry, and warm. It is probably only strange to Victorian eyes like yours.

By: Pippa

Pippa — Fri, 25 May 2012 01:05:56 +0000

I was the first mother to breast feed at my work, yes at meetings too. I was the first to feed at our Federal Board meeting. I came from europe and thought this was the normal thing to do! At the time it was considered scandalous here in Canada, (22 years ago) which I found a little odd; now young members do it all the time and are supported to do so. We are changing as a society and I am glad to see this both in practice and in this magazine cover and the resulting debate. Gone are the days when a breast feeding mother was expected to quietly withdraw to a room on her own to perform the shameful deed. And good riddance too. Lets just get on with it, as a natural part of motherhood and our work. The prudes and those who sexualise breasts will eventually get used to it.

By: Max

Max — Fri, 25 May 2012 01:00:25 +0000

Why would anyone with a enough brain cells to get a gleam in their eye watch fox news?