bonding

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
bonding
20
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 10:08am
It is so often said that moms feel their bottle-fed babies are "bonding" perfectly fine to them.

I am curious...does no one think that a bottle-fed baby could be bonding to his/her *bottle* as well? I'm not saying they *wouldn't* bond to their parents...but more that they would *also* be bonding to an inanimate object (with whatever repercussions this could have WRT materialism...)? I see lots of kids that seem pretty "attached" to their bottles, stroking them, holding them, not wanting to let them out of their sight, etc.

Just curious of others' thoughts on this one....

Fio.

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 10:12am
No, I don't think that a baby "bonds" to its bottle. The bottle might become somewhat of a comfort item, like a blanket or a stuffed animal, though.

I do believe that a bottle-feeding Mom can have just as strong of a bond as a breastfeeding Mom. I just think that the skin-to-skin contact and feel good hormones of breastfeeding help it along. But, of course, a bottle-fed baby can bond just as well!

As for a baby bonding with its bottle? No way! Sometimes my baby wants his pacifier (when he's REALLY tired), but that doesn't mean he is more bonded to the pacifier than his Mama!

Lisa and nursling, Grant (8 mos.), 2 DA's

Avatar for kfira71
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 10:58am
My DS never cared about his bottle at all. He was a super-fast drinker, downing 8 oz. in about 3 minutes, and had no interest in even holding the bottle himself. It was really just the thing that gave him his meals, and that was it.

I do know kids who become very attached to their bottles, my DS just wasn't one of them (I always fed him on my lap, and never gave him his bottle to crawl or walk around with, as I know some moms do. I just never saw the point in that). Anyway, I don't see any correlation between becoming "attached" to an object (be it a bottle, or a stuffed animal or blanket) and being bonded to a parent - they are two totally different things, IMO. I happen to think it's a healthy thing for a child to have a "lovey" as they grow. If it's something that brings them comfort, and won't cause harm (like a bottle of milk could, if given constantly enough to cause cavities), then I think it's wonderful. I don't believe a child should only want or need a parent to be soothed. Yes, parents should be available for that, but I think it's a healthy thing for an older infant or toddler to be able to soothe himself and have a feeling of control and independence.

Just my $.02.

~Kim

"Becoming a parent means agreeing to allow your heart to go walking around outside of your body."

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 11:08am
I think kids *bond* to all number of things. They might have a special blankie or stuffed animal they find comforting. They might find comfort in a pacifier (which I know is a big debate in and of itself).

Personally, I don't think using *food* for comfort ALL the time is a good idea in any circumstance. But as far as the "materialistic" angle...I just don't see it.

Lynda

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-27-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 11:20am
I think its normal and ok. My 4 year old has a blanket (oma blanket) that he takes to bed every night and he also hugs it when he's stressed out. He also has "Green Teddy" which goes to bed with him. Those are his things, hes attached to them and they give him some comfort. Nothing to do with materialism. My 2 year old has a pacifier "sookie" He takes it to bed with him every night and at nap time. It also comforts him. Again nothing to do with materialism. Its just a stepping stone from getting all the comfort from mom to learning how to comfort one's self. A very valuable skill to obtain imho.
Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 1:19pm
First off......sorry I have been MIA. I had a tonsillectomy last Thursday and have been knocked on my ass. I can't believe this pain. It's unreal.


My first ds never really "bonded" to anything but his pacifier. My second "bonded" to his puppy and blankie, and his bottle.

Are you meaning "bond" as in being comforted by?? Because that's what I mean by it when talking about them bonding to an inanimate object. My second ds found great comfort in his bottle. He used one till 19mo of age and only then was it taken away because of his severe reflux and soy allergy. I wouldn't give him anything else in his bottle so he lost it *cold turkey*. Thankfully, he had "bonded" to his puppy and blankie as I am sure that eased his anxiety in losing his bottle.

I must say Fio, maybe this sounds pretty selfish.....but I am quite pleased that my children weren't *attached* only to me. I was happy that my first ds would take a pacifier as it seemed to soothe him at night and help him go to sleep better. I was disappointed when my second ds wouldn't take one, but then was again pleased that he was growing attached to his blankie and puppy. I believe that a child finding comfort in something other than his/her parents is wonderful. Not only does it provide a break for mom, but teaches that trust and love expands beyond the parent-child relationship.


christine




Edited 4/15/2003 1:21:24 PM ET by cl-sunny.side.up


~christine~

Avatar for all_girls4me
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 2:33pm
Hmm....all of my girls weren't really attached to their bottle(unless they were really hungry...lol). With my first 2 DDs we got rid of the bottle at about 12 month,and I plan to do the same with DD #3. No big protest anywhere. They like certain blankets or animals, but I have to say that they are not really attached to one particular thing (besides mommy and daddy...lol). I actually have to say from my own personal experience that I saw with girlfriends of mine, that their babies would use them (meaning the breast)as a comfort thing, almost like a pacifier. I don't really agree with that, because what are they going to do when mommy isn't around? Wouldn't that be kind of the same thing than being attached to a bottle or pacifier?

Just a thought....Ilka



Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 2:53pm
I would have to say no Fio, I don't think that a child who is bottle fed is "attached" to their bottle. My son was never attached to his bottle, it fed him and that's that. He has a comfort item (his soother), but I see nothing wrong with comfort items. I think it's good for children to be able to comfort themselves using something that is theirs alone. There is no difference in a child getting comfort from a stuffed animal or from suckling at a breast.

As far as materialism goes, I don't think having a comfort item leads to being materialistic. I have seen someone on this board say that before (perhaps it was you) and I just don't get the connection. Materialism has to do with values, it has nothing to do with being bottlefed IMO.

Judi


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
In reply to: macbump
Tue, 04-15-2003 - 8:59pm
I think "bonding" is the wrong choice of words. It is certainly a source of comfort to many babies - including mine. Mine is a bottle-baby, big time. When she is very stressed and screaming her head off, I can offer her water from a bottle and she will often calm down after taking a sip or two and just having it "there." She won't take a paci unless she's tired, so that's out. Like I said, she just takes a sip or two (less than half an oz) and chews on the nipple a bit and she's happier. It's soothing, comforting... etc. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. Keep in mind - that given the choice between a stranger (or even daddy) with a bottle and ME without one... she'll pick me every time.

FWIW, Dr. Sears, who we all know is very pro-BFing and bonding, says that having a comfort object is perfectly normal and healthy. There's an article in this month's Parenting magazine about it in fact (I received a subscription as a gift - for the most part I don't like that magazine very much!)

-Deb

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: macbump
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 8:35pm
I agree a "lovey" or wahtever is fine.

Fio.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
In reply to: macbump
Fri, 04-18-2003 - 8:38pm
I agree that food for comfort ALL the time is really not great. Taht's why I think it is REALLY REALLY REALLY important that Dad (and other family members later) be the first person to show a baby that comfort doesn't always come from food. I.e., as much as possible, mom and ONLY mom feeds baby. Or at least, only one person (if Dad were a SAHD and baby were to only have bottles from HIM I could see that too...). I think that the more people who feed a child *and* cuddle him/her, the more likely the child is to a) associate comfort with food later on as an adult and b) end up being attached to the *food object* and not to the person behind it (b/c they'll learn how to become attached to other important people in their lives anyhow, without feeding being the way they become attached). FE, my Dh gives the girls a lot of their baths. It's a really tender moment type of thing, and is *their* attachment time.

Fio.

Pages