IMHO our species was designed to maximize bonding first to one parent. Of
course the other parent is extremely important. However, God/nature gave the
birth Mom functional mammary glands - the fathers are non-functional. I
agree that feeding a child at the breast gives a special bond. I am
wondering if God/nature intended the child to have one first, really strong
attachment and that all other attachments can become equally strong due to
the success from the first? I mean if a lesbian couple, for example, had the
non-birth mom using an sns, then is that a good thing or does it mean less
time at the birth mom's breasts? How is attachment affected? Is attachment
affected?

This would make a fascinating study.  Also, ABM is often listed as fourth
best in this list:
mom's milk at the breast
mom's milk some other way
another human's milk
ABM

so Dad feeding the baby is 2nd best.

I also think that our culture is so busy looking for equality that sometimes
we fail to celebrate the differences. It is good that I am really nurturing
and my dh pushes my daughter to test her limits. My dh didn't really feel
the same bond with my daughter until he could play with her / until her neck
was strong. Maybe this is OK. Maybe it's good that one person is so intesly
in love with the baby at first and the other person is content protecting
the house. Is there some biological benefit to this?

I'll stop here. And I mean no offense to Elizabeth and her dh. Clearly they
both love their child tremendously and that is a good thing!

Rachael

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html