Well I guess it may just be a matter of semantics. My example is at 4 months I got AF back - even though I was BFing 3 hourly - and it totally killed my supply, as in going from happily feeding DD2 6-7 BFs a day with no issue to her screaming in hunger after the first feed of the day (in the morning when of course your supply is usually at it's best). Incidentally the same thing happened with DD1 but I didn't get AF back until 8 months so obviously a very different picture at that age. Anyway my supply came back a bit a few days after AF finished (although not back to what it was before AF), but then continued to die everytime I ovulated and had AF. And given it took about a week of extra feeding/pumping yada yada to get it back to SOMETHING after each O and each AF, it was pretty screwed.
So as you can imagine little to no milk = breast refusal. And without out Motillium & top ups = weaning and not putting on weight. That isn't speculation, that was my reality at that time.
You seem to assume that weaning would only occur after something else was offered but if there is very little to get from BFing it is not going to last long is it? So yes I could try and twist words and massage meanings and say that it wasn't weaning, but at the end of the day if a baby won't stop screaming long enough to attach to a boob I'm not sure what other word would be appropriate?
I am not some one who would not offer anything else and let a baby scream for those those week long periods to hold onto the idea of her not weaning, I am a very different person to some one who would do that.
I can assure you I am not the first woman that has ever had this problem! I have a friend with a younger baby who is going through a similar hormone related supply issue (not related to AF though) and is having the same breast refusal/weaning experience. But I get the impression we're meant to pretend it doesn't happen because our scenarios inconveniently don't fit with in the ideals of BFing![]()


Reply With Quote


Bookmarks