Birth Parents Do Chestfeeding With Human Milk

a reply to: AutomateThis1

Had to check that out myself so here's the link that I found.

In a 1995 article for Discover titled "Father's Milk," Pulitzer Prize-winning author and one-time physiologist Jared Diamond reconciles the nipple stimulation and hormone quandary, pointing out that such stimulation can release prolactin. He also notes that starvation—which inhibits the functioning of hormone-producing glands as well as the hormone-absorbing liver—can cause spontaneous lactation, as observed in survivors of Nazi concentration camps and Japanese POW camps in World War II. "The glands recover much faster than the liver when normal nutrition is resumed," he writes, "so hormone levels soar unchecked."

www.scientificamerican.com...

Theoretically at least, it should be possible for a male, preparing for the birth of his child (by whatever means) to use a breast pump to stimulate milk production. Adoptive mothers of newborns have been known to do the same, why not the chaps too? It is a genuinely wonderful thing and a tremendous bond, even if they only provide a small or supplemental feed there would be numerous other benefits.

Of course now we know, they have no excuse not to.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Always reminds me of this:

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

So, in some circumstance’s men can lactate. However, they cannot breast feed naturally, or in sustainable quantities. I also wonder whether milk from males is the same as from females (women), who are physiologically equipped to nurse a child using milk secreted from mammary glands which are housed in the (er) breasts.

Irrespective, this is about the use and abuse of the language. The offensiveness to women by scrubbing out terms which belong to them - like "breast" - is a symptom of a broken worldview pushed by a small minority, and supported in ignorance by decision-makers, as per the OP link to an NHS Trust in the UK. Women have breasts – is that so offensive?

What is the new word for teat, or nipple?

Reengineering the language to appease a few sensitive souls will fail. It has to fail; otherwise, we are really entering an Orwellian dystopia.

a reply to: paraphi

It belongs more, I think, to chickens. Growing up we refered to other girls as flat-chested or big-chested - but generally we called them chests, our parents and grand-parents did too, which is probably why I did/do. Breast is a more biological and scientific term, it was popularised to aid in breast cancer awareness. I don't find either offensive or inoffensive, they're just words and if they make people uncomfortable I am happy to pick up a theasurus and choose to use something that makes them more comfortable. There is no "new" word for anything. As an employer and a service provider the NHS has to ensure it is meeting the needs of a diverse range of users equally. These kind of directives are how you do that in the public sector. As someone who does not work for the NHS I don't need to change my behaviour at all, nor does anyone else on this thread unless they do work for that particular NHS trust or another NHS trust that this will likely be rolled out to.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I don't think anything can expunge the image conjured up by the opening sentence to the article I linked.

In late 2004 the Internet Movie Database reported that Dustin Hoffman suddenly had the urge to breast-feed.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

LOL, that's just bizarre.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
There is no "new" word for anything. As an employer and a service provider the NHS has to ensure it is meeting the needs of a diverse range of users equally.

I am sorry but "chest feeding" is a new term. It replaces "breast feeding", something which people know and understand. For diversity to work it should not be divisive. I am afraid that this trype of re-writing the language under the excuse of diversity, without thinking through the impact on e.g. the majority of women, does nothing to increase diversity.

The breast sits on top of the chest. Saying someone is big-chested is a polite way of saying they have big breasts. By saying chest-feeding, you are removing the word "breast". How can that increase diversity?

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I'm not sure why, but I expect he has very hairy nipples. Perhaps, learning from little Stewie's experience men should be encouraged to remove all hair from the nipple area before trying this at homes. It would probably help with the breast pump too, hairs might prevent the required vacuum for effective suction.

a reply to: paraphi

A new term possibly but not unfamiliar as you say, it is just a polite way of saying "breast" when you're in mixed company. That might just be why they picked it. How is politeness divisive?

The diversity already exists. There is no need or drive to increase it just to acknowledge it in the way it would prefer to be acknowledged. These are simply guidelines to better help the NHS to standardise that approach. Doesn't affect me or anyone else who doesn't work for the NHS. Mothers who want to be called mothers will still be called mothers, their chests will still be called breasts, if that is what they prefer, in one-on-one sessions with their mid-wife.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Since when is breast impolite?

originally posted by: AutomateThis1
Since when is breast impolite?

To be honest, I don't know, you'll have to ask paraphi, they were the one who suggested that chest was a polite form of breast. I only agreed because it enabled me to turn it around in favour of my own argument.

I was though merely pointing out that here in the UK "chest" is a widely used and well-understood alternative term for breasts. Personally, I would only use "breast" when talking to a health professional, more informally I am happier with chest, bust, tits - not necessarily in that order - and I can understand why the NHS trust in question chose chest as an alternative.

And as we have all learnt, since breast tissue is largely superfluous to "breast-feeding" perhaps chest-feeding is the more appropriate terminology anyway.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
A new term possibly but not unfamiliar as you say, it is just a polite way of saying "breast" when you're in mixed company. That might just be why they picked it. How is politeness divisive?

Maybe our world view is different. I don't think the word "breast" is offensive, nor impolite to say. Replacing "breast" is offensive to women. Women don't chest-feed.

a reply to: paraphi

But the breast is essentially just the fatty tissue that covers the important stuff, it doesn't actually serve any purpose, it's just something that we clearly selected for sexually. The breast is not what produces the milk, so technically they don't breast-feed either.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
But the breast is essentially just the fatty tissue that covers the important stuff, it doesn't actually serve any purpose, it's just something that we clearly selected for sexually. The breast is not what produces the milk, so technically they don't breast-feed either.

Oh, Lordie. Is it necessary to give a run through on human biology? Suffice to say the in females (aka women) the breast is the mammary gland. The mammary gland produces milk during and after pregnancy, but is mostly fat in between times. The breast - and there are two - sit on the chest. The purpose of the breast is not overtly sexual per se, but rather an indication of health - or so most threories go.

You're not a woman are you? Perhaps ask your mum?

a reply to: paraphi

You're not a woman are you?

No, they are non binary.

a reply to: BrokenCircles

So continue to use 'em.

So long as you're not using them to deliberately offend, what's their boggle??

Yes, I know that some will find offense where ever they can, but that's on them, not me. Or you.

originally posted by: paraphi
Oh, Lordie. Is it necessary to give a run through on human biology? Suffice to say the in females (aka women) the breast is the mammary gland.

Yes, "in females" the breast (the fatty tissue over the pectoral muscles) also contains the mammary glands. In males though, it is just the fatty tissue but still a breast, hence why both genders have a breast bone and why the Robin is red-breasted whatever the gender. As I very clearly stated previously, the use of the word "breast" to describe both the fatty-tissue and the mammary glands in an only female context is modern usage, arising, I have since found in the 1960s presumably from the combined forces of raised breast cancer awareness and the women's liberation movement. Prior to the 20th century breast was a gender neutral term to describe the outer chest, in fact it was used far more to describe male accoitrements, such as the armour breast-plate than it was for womens attire.

Here are some links for illustrative purposes...

Use of the word "breast" in literature:

books.google.com... ast%3B%2Cc0

For comparison the use of the word "bosom":

books.google.com... %3B%2Cc0

On the usage of the term "breast cancer":

books.google.com... 2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cbreast%20cancer%3B%2Cc0

And "Breast feeding":

books.google.com... B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Cbreast%20feeding%3B%2Cc0

originally posted by: paraphi
The mammary gland produces milk during and after pregnancy, but is mostly fat in between times. The breast - and there are two - sit on the chest. The purpose of the breast is not overtly sexual per se, but rather an indication of health - or so most threories go.

Indeed, it is a secondary sexual characteristic, and as such appears after the on-set of puberty, along with the fatty deposits of the hips and rump, and they are traditionally considered signs of physical and sexual maturity. However, it is perfectly possible to become pregnant prior to the development of secondary sexual characteristics, though pregnancy will bring forth the appearance of breasts it will just be the mammary glands and ducts responding to the hormonal changes. Much as some boys develop little buds behind their nipples in response to hormonal changes and normal development.

Just compare our, assuming you're human, female breasts compared to other primates, or other mammals in fact. Human females are somewhat unique in having quite so much fatty tissue in our chests and that is likely due to the misapprehension that prominent breasts equals lots of milk. It does not, quite the opposite sometimes.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

You better not mention men wearing high heels back in the day.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Let's agree to disagree? I appreciate the civil debate and your reasoned argument.

I maintain the removal of the term "breast-feed" and replacing it with "chest-feed" is a continuation of the erosion of women's rights by people with ulterior motives, even if under the guise of diversity.

a reply to: paraphi

What intrigues me more is why not the universally and widely accepted "nursing"?

I don't particularly like the term "chest-feeding", and given that breast is already a gender-neutral term, don't see the point of going to the expense of changing all literature for an equally gender-neutral term, except for the fact that since the 1960s breast has been promoted as more gender specific and developed more sexual connotations. Possibly. But if we are going to be technical about it, neither chest- nor breast adequately describes what is going on under the surface. Nursing does, as it derives from the same origin as nourish. Do medical nurses nourish in the same way?