Quote of the day :

‎"your imagination is your preview of lifes coming attractions"-einstein

Cosleeping and Biological Imperatives by James Mckenna Ph.D

Why Human Babies Do Not and Should Not Sleep Alone by James J. McKenna Ph.D., Edmund P. Joyce C.S.C. Chair in Anthropology, Director, Mother-Baby Behavioral Sleep Laboratory, University of Notre Dame

Where a baby sleeps is not as simple as current medical discourse and recommendations against cosleeping in some western societies want it to be. And there is good reason why. I write here to explain why the pediatric recommendations on forms of cosleeping such as bedsharing will and should remain mixed. I will also address why the majority of new parents practice intermittent bedsharing despite governmental and medical warnings against it. Definitions are important here. The term cosleeping refers to any situation in which an a committed adult caregiver, usually the mother, sleeps within close enough proximity to her infant so that each, the mother and infant, can respond to each other's sensory signals and cues. Room sharing is a form of cosleeping, always considered safe and always considered protective. But it is not the room itself that it is protective. It is what goes on between the mother (or father) and the infant that is. Medical authorities seem to forget this fact. This form of cosleeping is not controversial and is recommended by all. Unfortunately, the terms cosleeping, bedsharing and a well-known dangerous form of cosleeping, couch or sofa cosleeping, are mostly used interchangeably by medical authorities, even though these terms need to be kept separate. It is absolutely wrong to say, for example, that "cosleeping is dangerous" when room-sharing is a form of cosleeping and this form of cosleeping (as at least three epidemiological studies show) reduce an infant's chances of dying by one half. Bedsharing is another form of cosleeping which can be made either safe or unsafe, but it is not intrinsically one nor the other. Couch or sofa cosleeping is, however, intrinsically dangerous as babies can and do all too easily get pushed against the back of the couch by the adult, or flipped face down in the pillows, to suffocate. Often news stories talk about "another baby dying while cosleeping" but they fail to distinguish between what type of cosleeping was involved and, worse, what specific dangerous factor might have actually been responsible for the baby dying. A specific example is whether the infant was sleeping prone next to their parent, which is an independent risk factor for death regardless of where the infant was sleeping. Such reports inappropriately suggest that all types of cosleeping are the same, dangerous, and all the practices around cosleeping carry the same high risks, and that no cosleeping environment can be made safe. Nothing can be further from the truth. This is akin to suggesting that because some parents drive drunk with their infants in their cars, unstrapped into car seats, and because some of these babies die in car accidents that nobody can drive with babies in their cars because obviously car transportation for infants is fatal. You see the point. One of the most important reasons why bedsharing occurs, and the reason why simple declarations against it will not eradicate it, is because sleeping next to one's baby is biologically appropriate, unlike placing infants prone to sleep or putting an infant in a room to sleep by itself. This is particularly so when bedsharing is associated with breast feeding. When done safely, mother-infant cosleeping saves infants lives and contributes to infant and maternal health and well being. Merely having an infant sleeping in a room with a committed adult caregiver (cosleeping) reduces the chances of an infant dying from SIDS or from an accident by one half! Research In Japan where co-sleeping and breastfeeding (in the absence of maternal smoking) is the cultural norm, rates of the sudden infant death syndrome are the lowest in the world. For breastfeeding mothers, bedsharing makes breastfeeding much easier to manage and practically doubles the amount of breastfeeding sessions while permitting both mothers and infants to spend more time asleep. The increased exposure to mother's antibodies which comes with more frequent nighttime breastfeeding can potentially, per any given infant, reduce infant illness. And because co-sleeping in the form of bedsharing makes breastfeeding easier for mothers, it encourages them to breastfeed for a greater number of months, according to Dr. Helen Ball's studies at the University of Durham, therein potentially reducing the mothers chances of breast cancer. Indeed, the benefits of cosleeping helps explain why simply telling parents never to sleep with baby is like suggesting that nobody should eat fats and sugars since excessive fats and sugars lead to obesity and/or death from heart disease, diabetes or cancer. Obviously, there's a whole lot more to the story. As regards bedsharing, an expanded version of its function and effects on the infant's biology helps us to understand not only why the bedsharing debate refuses to go away, but why the overwhelming majority of parents in the United States (over 50% according to the most recent national survey) now sleep in bed for part or all of the night with their babies. That the highest rates of bedsharing worldwide occur alongside the lowest rates of infant mortality, including Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) rates, is a point worth returning to. It is an important beginning point for understanding the complexities involved in explaining why outcomes related to bedsharing (recall, one of many types of cosleeping) vary between being protective for some populations and dangerous for others. It suggests that whether or not babies should bedshare and what the outcome will be may depend on who is involved, under what condition it occurs, how it is practiced, and the quality of the relationship brought to the bed to share. This is not the answer some medical authorities are looking for, but it certainly resonates with parents, and it is substantiated by scores of studies. Understanding Recommendations Recently, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) SIDS Sub-Committee for whom I served (ad hoc) as an expert panel member recommended that babies should sleep close to their mothers in the same room but not in the same bed. While I celebrated this historic room-sharing recommendation, I disagreed with and worry about the ramifications of the unqualified recommendation against any and all bedsharing. Further, I worry about the message being given unfairly (if not immorally) to mothers; that is, no matter who you are, or what you do, your sleeping body is no more than an inert potential lethal weapon against which neither you nor your infant has any control. If this were true, none of us humans would be here today to have this discussion because the only reason why we survived is because our ancestral mothers slept alongside us and breastfed us through the night! I am not alone in thinking this way. The Academy of Breast Feeding Medicine, the USA Breast Feeding Committee, the Breast Feeding section of the American Academy of Pediatrics, La Leche League International, UNICEF and WHO are all prestigious organizations who support bedsharing and which use the best and latest scientific information on what makes mothers and babies safe and healthy. Clearly, there is no scientific consensus. What we do agree on, however, is what specific "factors" increase the chances of SIDS in a bedsharing environment, and what kinds of circumstances increase the chances of suffocation either from someone in the bed or from the bed furniture itself. For example, adults should not bedshare if inebriated or if desensitized by drugs, or overly exhausted, and other toddlers or children should never be in a bed with an infant. Moreover, since having smoked during a pregnancy diminishes the capacities of infants to arouse to protect their breathing, smoking mothers should have their infants sleep alongside them on a different surface but not in the same bed. My own physiological studies suggest that breastfeeding mother-infant pairs exhibit increased sensitivities and responses to each other while sleeping, and those sensitivities offers the infant protection from overlay. However, if bottle feeding, infants should lie alongside the mother in a crib or bassinet, but not in the same bed. Prone or stomach sleeping especially on soft mattresses is always dangerous for infants and so is covering their heads with blankets, or laying them near or on top of pillows. Light blanketing is always best as is attention to any spaces or gaps in bed furniture which needs to be fixed as babies can slip into these spaces and quickly to become wedged and asphyxiate. My recommendation is, if routinely bedsharing, to strip the bed apart from its frame, pulling the mattress and box springs to the center of the room, therein avoiding dangerous spaces or gaps into which babies can slip to be injured or die. But, again, disagreement remains over how best to use this information. Certain medical groups, including some members of the American Academy of Pediatrics (though not necessarily the majority), argue that bedsharing should be eliminated altogether. Others, myself included, prefer to support the practice when it can be done safely amongst breastfeeding mothers. Some professionals believe that it can never be made safe but there is no evidence that this is true. More importantly, parents just don't believe it! Making sure that parents are in a position to make informed choices therein reflecting their own infant's needs, family goals, and nurturing and infant care preferences seems to me to be fundamental. Our Biological Imperatives My support of bedsharing when practiced safely stems from my research knowledge of how and why it occurs, what it means to mothers, and how it functions biologically. Like human taste buds which reward us for eating what's overwhelmingly critical for survival i.e. fats and sugars, a consideration of human infant and parental biology and psychology reveal the existence of powerful physiological and social factors that promote maternal motivations to cosleep and explain parental needs to touch and sleep close to baby. The low calorie composition of human breast milk (exquisitely adjusted for the human infants' undeveloped gut) requires frequent nighttime feeds, and, hence, helps explain how and why a cultural shift toward increased cosleeping behavior is underway. Approximately 73% of US mothers leave the hospital breast feeding and even amongst mothers who never intended to bedshare soon discover how much easier breast feeding is and how much more satisfied they feel with baby sleeping alongside often in their bed. But it's not just breastfeeding that promotes bedsharing. Infants usually have something to say about it too! And for some reason they remain unimpressed with declarations as to how dangerous sleeping next to mother can be. Instead, irrepressible (ancient) neurologically-based infant responses to maternal smells, movements and touch altogether reduce infant crying while positively regulating infant breathing, body temperature, absorption of calories, stress hormone levels, immune status, and oxygenation. In short, and as mentioned above, cosleeping (whether on the same surface or not) facilitates positive clinical changes including more infant sleep and seems to make, well, babies happy. In other words, unless practiced dangerously, sleeping next to mother is good for infants. The reason why it occurs is because… it is supposed to. Recall that despite dramatic cultural and technological changes in the industrialized west, human infants are still born the most neurologically immature primate of all, with only 25% of their brain volume. This represents a uniquely human characteristic that could only develop biologically (indeed, is only possible) alongside mother's continuous contact and proximity—as mothers body proves still to be the only environment to which the infant is truly adapted, for which even modern western technology has yet to produce a substitute. Even here in whatever-city-USA, nothing a baby can or cannot do makes sense except in light of the mother's body, a biological reality apparently dismissed by those that argue against any and all bedsharing and what they call cosleeping, but which likely explains why most crib-using parents at some point feel the need to bring their babies to bed with them —findings that our mother-baby sleep laboratory here at Notre Dame has helped document scientifically. Given a choice, it seems human babies strongly prefer their mother's body to solitary contact with inert cotton-lined mattresses. In turn, mothers seem to notice and succumb to their infant's preferences. There is no doubt that bedsharing should be avoided in particular circumstances and can be practiced dangerously. While each single bedsharing death is tragic, such deaths are no more indictments about any and all bedsharing than are the three hundred thousand plus deaths or more of babies in cribs an indictment that crib sleeping is deadly and should be eliminated. Just as unsafe cribs and unsafe ways to use cribs can be eliminated so, too, can parents be educated to minimize bedsharing risks. Moving Beyond Judgments to Understanding We still do not know what causes SIDS. But fortunately the primary factors that increase risk are now widely known i.e. placing an infant prone (face down) for sleep, using soft mattresses, maternal smoking, overwrapping babies or blocking air movement around their faces. In combination with bedsharing, where more vital normal defensive infant responses and may be more important to an infant (like the ability to arouse to bat a blanket which momentarily falls to cover the infants face when its parent moves or turns) these risks become exaggerated especially amongst unhealthy infants. When infants die in these obviously unsafe conditions, it is here where social biases and the sheer levels of ignorance associated with actually explaining the death become apparent. A death itself in a bedsharing environment does not automatically suggest, as many legal and medical authorities assert, that it was the bedsharing, or worse, suffocation that killed the infant. Infants in bedsharirng environments, like babies in cribs, can still die of SIDS. It is a shame and certainly inappropriate that, for example, the head pathologists of the state of Indiana recommends that other pathologists assume SIDS as a likely cause of death when babies die in cribs but to assume asphyxiation if a baby dies in an adult bed or has a history of "cosleeping". By assuming before any facts are known from the pathologist's death scene and toxicological report that any bedsharing baby was a victim of an accidental suffocation rather than from some congenital or natural cause, including SIDS unrelated to bedsharing, medical authorities not only commit a form of scientific fraud but they victimize the doomed infant's parents for a third time. The first occurs when their baby dies, the second occurs when health professionals interviewed for news stories (which commonly occurs) imply that when a baby dies in a bed with an adult it must be due to suffocation (or a SIDS induced by bedsharing). The third time the parents are victimized is when still without any evidence medical or police authorities suggest that their baby's death was "preventable," that their baby would still be alive if only the parents had not bedshared. This conclusion is based not on the facts of the tragedy but on unfair and fallacious stereotypes about bedsharing. Indeed, no legitimate SIDS researcher nor forensic pathologist should render a judgment that a baby was suffocated without an extensive toxiological report and death scene investigation including information from the mother concerning what her thoughts are on what might or could have happened. Whether involving cribs or adult beds, risky sleep practices leading to infant deaths are more likely to occur when parents lack access to safety information, or if they are judged to be irresponsible should they choose to follow their own and their infants' biological predilections to bedshare, or if public health messages are held back on brochures and replaced by simplistic and inappropriate warnings saying "just never do it." Such recommendations misrepresent the true function and biological significance of the behaviors, and the critical extent to which dangerous practices can be modified, and they dismiss the valid reasons why people engage in the behavior in the first place.

For More Information: A Popular Parenting Book Sleeping With Your Baby: A Parent's Guide To Cosleeping by James J.McKenna (2007). Platypus Press. The Scientific Perspective McKenna, J., Ball H., Gettler L., Mother-infant Cosleeping, Breastfeeding and SIDS: What Biological Anthropologists Have Learned About Normal Infant Sleep and Pediatric Sleep Medicine. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology 50:133-161 (2007) McKenna, J., McDade, T., Why Babies Should Never Sleep Alone: A Review of the Co-Sleeping Controversy in Relation to SIDS, Bedsharing and Breastfeeding (pdf). Paediatric Respiratory Reviews 6:134-152 (2005)

Leave kids alone !

The term helicopter parenting has been thrown around to describe those parents who anxiously hover over their children for fear of harm .

In today's society it seems we have so much to fear , predators , injury , other children sending parents into a hand wringing , fear induced sweat ! and while it is essential to protect our children at what cost and how is it affecting not only children but parents when protection is done to excess ?

New research by Margaret Nelson, Professor of Sociology at Middlebury College, Vermont, shows that it is not the children who suffer, but the parents. They become so focused on their kids that their marriages suffer and often fracture, they spend less time with their friends, in their community and often are deeply unhappy as a result.

Reams of studies show parents rate low on the happiness scale , of course parenting brings the ultimate joy and deep fulfillment but how does it measure in days , hours , minutes ?

So how can parents take back that everyday happiness we once experienced ? it may be  easierthan you think just  RELAX !

Think back to a time when children roamed free , climbed trees , played games in the street how delightful childhood was .

Parenting SHOULDN'T"T be hard , learn to take a backseat and leave the kids alone

Be there for them but don't be on top of them , give children space to creatively explore their world without being stifled .


                                    So dont hover let your kids go FREE RANGE !

A readers response to the circumcistion post .

This is a response to the circumcision thread from a passionate intactivist male .
..................................................................................

"But his dad is cut we want them to look the same"

ME. Having an elephant trunk hanging between your legs can cause serious insecurity, even emotional damage. But not to the owner of the trouser snake with eyelid, but to his Dad. Parents cut their sons because Dad does not want to be reminded of what Nature Intended every time he is a proper modern Dad and changes his son's diaper, or gives his son his daily bath. Mom does not want to be reminded, while she cares for her son, of something that Nature put at centre stage of vaginal intercourse but she does not get to enjoy. Routine circ then follows from the old adage that "out of sight, out of mind." Millions of American parents fear that foreskin would inject inappropriate sexual thoughts into the parent-child relationship.

If Dad and son must look alike, let Dad restore his foreskin. The job will be complete by the time Dad and Son are old enough to use a locker room together.


"Intact is unhealthy"

ME. Yea, if you let weeks go by without skinning it back in the shower, if you have contempt for condoms, and frequent women so trashy they are willing to risk all for a one night stand without a condom. Foreskins are not unhealthy; irresponsible sex is. Last century, a quarter million American gay men died of AIDS. Ang guess what? The vast majority were circumcised.


"but i just think they look nicer "

ME. Nicer in Mom's eyes is irrelevant. And who knows what his future wife will prefer?


When, over the years, I have told fellow men that I defend the foreskin, several have replied as follows:

"Have it your way, but uncircumcised guys can forget about ever getting a blowjob"

Lady Luxe, you did not write that, but I want to inject that into this frank discussion. I have taken the liberty of being very blunt here, because your post was very blunt.

Many American parents silently believe an American boy's first sex act will be a blow job at 11PM on a Friday or Saturday night, in a car parked on a lover's lane, after a dance or game. This will take place 18 hours since his last shower. If he's uncut, his johnson will be slimmy and stinky, and she will balk at doing the deed. Worse yet, she might dump him for having a Weird or Dirty Dick. Worst of all, she might reluctantly agree to vaginal intercourse and risk pregancy or passing on an STD, because she simply cannot face sucking an uncircumcised dick.

This controversy is a polarising one, because I submit that the foreskin is the lewdest part of the male body. It stands at centre stage of vaginal intercourse and foreplay. If we endeavour to preserve it, we are conceding its sexual advantages. In turn, that means admitting that tens of millions of American men and their spouses are at a sexual disadvantage. That is simply not a pretty picture.

The 20th century American Foreskin Holocaust has damaged the sexual side of quite a few American marriages. A host of problems can be laid at the doorstep of routine circ: PE, ED, jackrabbit sex, boring foreplay, chronic soreness, inadequate lubrication, scarring of the penis, not enough skin to allow for comfortable erection, a slow death of penis sensation in middle age. Most of all is the removal of the foreskin glide action during intercourse. Not all women notice this action, and some that do notice it don't especially value it. But some women deem their discovery of intercourse with an intact penis a major turning point in their lifetime journey of sexual self-discovery. There are even American women who say they climax seldom or never with cut men, and always with intact men.

This summer, Cosmo published an article saying that intact makes for better sex. In light of what I have written above, I suspect that's true, but never mind: what counts is whether the typical young American woman will believe it true, which I think is about to happen.

Ladies, please be very careful about putting the info I have set out here into practice, because the full sexual glory of the intact penis requires dispensing with a condom, which I really cannot recommend outside of marriage.

Quote of the day

A child seldom needs a good talking to as a good listening to. ~Robert Brault,

My love of baby wearing

Babywearing is something i came across quiet by accident , living in an area that served as a daily catwalk of the latest styles , i remember being pregnant with my first son and seeing quiet a few new mothers and fathers carting their children around in slings , i thought to myself " those look awesome , really hippy chic , ive gotta have one " i never knew my purchase of that sling based purely on its fashion credibility would bring me so much more than i anticipated .


The day came and i was finally able to go home with my new son , itching to go or a walk and dreading dragging a pram down three flights of stairs i grabbed the sling and placed my so inside , he instantly fell asleep to the gentle rock all curled up in the sling like a little marsupial in it's pouch , it was one of many " awwwww" moments i treasure , i felt so ..........motherly .

The sling became a daily staple , hang out the washing ? wear the baby , sweep the floor ? wear the baby you get the drift , i could have him close to my body and be hands free , awesome !

I could never have imagined such a simple product could have so much benefit from getting day to day jobs done , resistance training great for new mothers to the amazing bonding experience it provided .

So where did this amazing , wonderful invention come from ? i soon discovered it to be a worldwide phenomenon , practiced all over the world for centuries , dating as far back as 50,000 years ago suggests Blaffr-Hrdy (2000).

Baby carrying and carriers around the world.

Mexico and Guatemala
Short wraparound slings have been used in many cultures. The Mexican or Guatemalan Rebozo is well-known thanks to the work of Barbara Wishingrad and her Rebozo way project. These shawls are used for carrying all sorts of items as well as for clothing and protection from the sun. Rebozos are also used during pregnancy to reposition the baby and during birthing to help support the mother in various positions.

Peru and Bolivia
A Manta or Awayo has been traditionally worn. This is a large rectangle of woven fabric folded in half and tied in a knot at the mother's chest. The baby is carried on the mother's back.

Tahiti
A Pareo is a rectangular piece of printed cloth that is also used as a wraparound skirt.

Ecuador
Woven or sheet cloths are used on the back. Either a rectangular or triangular piece of fabric is used.

Borneo
The Tribes from Borneo such as Kayan and Kenyah traditionally carry their babies in a rattan plaited carrier. These are decorated with multicolored beaded patterns of dragons, leopards and hornbills. Ancient glass beads and amulets of bear-claws or leopard's fangs add to the spiritual protection of the baby carried within.

Indonesia
Pieces of fabric are also tied over one shoulder and are used as baby carriers. These are called selendang slings. They are also worn as a skirt or dress or used to carry things.

Kenya
A rectangular piece of material with a border around it is also used by women and men to carry a baby on the back, as well as to sit on, to carry items on the head, and to protect clothing whilst cooking. In some parts it is called a kanga, in other parts a pagne, and in coastal region a woven style is called a kikoy. Last century, important Swahili sayings started to be printed on each kanga. Two identical pieces of fabric (called a doti) are usually bought together. An identical pair is sometimes split between best friends. A baby can be tied on using one or two kangas.

Mozambique
A Capulana is used, which is a printed piece of cloth used for baby carrying as well as carrying other things or as a piece of clothing. For carrying babies it is tied over a shoulder and knotted between the breasts (like a sling). The baby sits on the back.

South Africa
A piece of cloth is again used. Babies are tied onto the back with the cloth tied on top of the breasts, but straight around the back rather than over the shoulder.

Papua New Guinea
Ipili people use a net bag called a bilum to carry their babies. They are carried with the strap around the forehead of the mother and the baby in the bag carried on the front or back. A bilum is a bag available in many sizes and used for carrying many different things. The bag is lined with soft leaves or pieces of cloth to make it more comfortable for the baby.

Bali
Bainese babies do not touch the ground for the first three months, but are passed from person to person. After this time a special ceremony is held and babies are then welcome to play on the ground.

Egypt
Egyptian women who picked cotton in the fields would make slings out of dress fabric. The patterns were colourful and bright, and the slings were wide in the middle and narrower at the ends. The women carried their babies on their backs in this way.

Asian carriers
In South West China, Thailand, Laos, and Vietnam, Mei Tais are worn, with either a double or single strap, as are Hmong style carriers which are usually beautifully hand- embroidered. The mei tai originated from China and has probably been around for centuries. They were used by peasant women whilst working in the fields.

Laos, Myanmar, and parts of China, Vietnam and Tibet
A "Hmong"-style carrier is used, a squre of fabric similar to a podaegi but narrower. The baby is worn in front or on the back. In these cultures there have generally been plenty of extended family so babies are often passed from one set of arms to another. As people move to cities and move away from more traditional ways, carriers are used far less and more Western ways such as strollers are adopted.

Japan
Onbuhimos were used, which are a wrap style carrier made from gauze, cotton, or wool, similar to a Mei Tai but with a narrower body style.

Korea
The Podaegi is used which is a kind of blanket tied around the wearer’s chest rather than over the shoulders.

India
In areas where the caste system still applies, some of the lower caste peoples carry their children by tying them into the shawl part of their saris. Apparently, higher caste peoples believe that it is only the lower caste carry babies.

Tibet, Nepal, Indian Himalayas
Wraparound carriers are often used, generally of a single colour; fuschia coloured ones seem popular in Lhasa. The fabrics used range in thickness from very thin to very thick.

Russia
A short piece of cloth like a rebozo would traditionally be used.

Europe
In Europe, recorded history has often focussed on the upper classes, where the art of baby carrying was lost earlier than in the rural areas and lower classes. Thus, information is not readily available on the history of baby carrying. At the Didymos website, pictures showing baby carrying give us some idea of what happened, for example a Rembrandt picture illustrates a woman a child tied to her back. These pictures indicate that in the Middle Ages in Europe, it may have been common for babies to be worn on their mothers’ backs.

During the 19th Century in Europe poor and uneducated people carried their children and were physically close with them, whereas the upper classes created a distance between adult and child, with the widespread view of not spoiling them.

Wales
In Wales, long pieces of fabric and shawls were used to carry babies, which continued until around the 1950’s.

Highland Scotland
Scottish women are also rumoured to have used their plaid to carry their babies.

Dalarna, a northern province in Sweden held onto traditions longer than any other part of Sweden. Interestingly, women in this culture had voting rights, ownership rights and kept their last names in marriage. They also carried their children in a "bog" or “boeg” – which has been carried on into the English word, "bag". It was made of leather and shaped into a rounded bag with edges and straps that were cut into traditional patterns. The baby would be wrapped in something warm, then placed in the bog.

In some Scandinavian cultures, cradleboards were also used.

In Germany, a traditional cloak or coat was worn, in which there was a piece of cloth to wrap the baby on the hip.

England
In Victorian England, upper class households would employ a rocking nurse, who would carry the baby in her arms on walks and rock them when crying. Rocking cradles were used by women working in houses.



Ref:http://www.parentingwithpresence.net/index.php?pageid=1899

Quote of the day

Peace is not the absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.
Ronald Reagan