Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

The issue of you getting "criticized" would be addressed by the AAP making clear that mothers have holiday autonomy and have the right to decide how to feed their children.

To a point, PP. No human has total autonomy when it comes to children.

+1. A mother may well want to extend breastfeeding until three or four but that’s not in the best interest of the child. They need autonomy too!!

Yes I know. Why can't the " as long as mutually desired by bother mother and baby" apply to any age?

Because a child doesn’t know what is in their best interest.

I get consent is really hard for people but when it says mutually desired by mother and child there are instances where a child self weans and no longer wants to nurse that does happen. The other option would be that the mother is done nursing at any point and she weans. This is how mutual works. Both parties have to be willing to continue the nursing relationship.

I can see now why people have such a hard time with consent because you're having real issues with this and it is the same thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

Anthropological studies have shown that the natural weaning age for humans is 5-7 which is exactly the time human mammals loose their “milk” teeth.

I think the studies on breastfeeding benefits for women show longer is better.

In any case my goal has always been 2 years or as long as my DC is still willing. After 1 year the amount of time I spend pumping is greatly reduce. I go feed her once a day and maybe hand express/pump 1 other time for 10-15 min. I try to make up for the time I go to feed her by working while eating lunch.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

The issue of you getting "criticized" would be addressed by the AAP making clear that mothers have holiday autonomy and have the right to decide how to feed their children.

To a point, PP. No human has total autonomy when it comes to children.

+1. A mother may well want to extend breastfeeding until three or four but that’s not in the best interest of the child. They need autonomy too!!

Yes I know. Why can't the " as long as mutually desired by bother mother and baby" apply to any age?

Because a child doesn’t know what is in their best interest.

I really hate this recommendation. I’m still nursing a 24 month old because she desperately wants to but I wish I’d weaned at 18 months like my older kids. Weaning at any point forward now is going to be so emotionally hard for her. She may be getting some physical benefit from my breast milk but it’s nothing compared to the psychological rejection and loss she’s going to feel when I force wean her.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

The issue of you getting "criticized" would be addressed by the AAP making clear that mothers have holiday autonomy and have the right to decide how to feed their children.

To a point, PP. No human has total autonomy when it comes to children.

+1. A mother may well want to extend breastfeeding until three or four but that’s not in the best interest of the child. They need autonomy too!!

Yes I know. Why can't the " as long as mutually desired by bother mother and baby" apply to any age?

Anonymous wrote:The AAP recommendation is to nurse until two. That’s all it says. They aren’t recommending extended nursing of preschool kids and older!

I thought it was only until 2 if the mother and baby wants! They are just supporting it! Not recommending it!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

The issue of you getting "criticized" would be addressed by the AAP making clear that mothers have holiday autonomy and have the right to decide how to feed their children.

To a point, PP. No human has total autonomy when it comes to children.

+1. A mother may well want to extend breastfeeding until three or four but that’s not in the best interest of the child. They need autonomy too!!

The AAP recommendation is to nurse until two. That’s all it says. They aren’t recommending extended nursing of preschool kids and older!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

The issue of you getting "criticized" would be addressed by the AAP making clear that mothers have holiday autonomy and have the right to decide how to feed their children.

To a point, PP. No human has total autonomy when it comes to children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

Do you think it's okay to criticize a woman for breastfeeding a 2.5 yo? When does criticizing feeding choices become okay, or not okay?

No. But after 3 - yes! NP here. Some things simply aren’t in a child’s best interest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

The issue of you getting "criticized" would be addressed by the AAP making clear that mothers have holiday autonomy and have the right to decide how to feed their children.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

Do you think it's okay to criticize a woman for breastfeeding a 2.5 yo? When does criticizing feeding choices become okay, or not okay?

Nursing beyond age two to three does seem unhealthy to me - like the mother doesn’t want to let go of the baby years. I feel the same about bottles and pacifiers.

Then again, my boys were done at 16 and 18 months and couldn’t be less interested in nursing. They left me sad but they were done.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.

I posted earlier about getting criticized by even other physicians about still nursing my 22 month old. And don’t get me started on what my MIL and even friends have said to me about continuing to nurse. It’s clearly not common sense to everyone.

As for the upper age bracket, you could read the recommendation as using the two year mark to wean as well. I hope I can wean DD at two.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By all means please link to the research showing breastfeeding for two years benefits the mother more than breastfeeding for one year, but breastfeeding for three years has no benefits/might be harmful.

I think common sense will tell you that infantilizing an older child would be harmful, PP. All mammals wean their young.

If it's common sense, why doesn't the AAP simply say it supports breastfeeding as long as it is mutually desired by mother and baby? Why mention two years at all? Surely mothers are smart enough to use their common sense, and we're not going to see an epidemic of breastfeeding 10 year olds.