the soapbox beckons, so am climbing on... I agree with K. Dettwyler in disliking the term non-nutritive suckling. To my mind, it categorizes in a way that implies the breast is not always good for making/giving milk. I belive this feeds right into the fears of mothers who also have been taught that the breast is sometimes EMPTY and other times FULL but when one cannot feel the milk, one will never know and what (egads!) if the baby wants to feed/nurse again in 45 minutes, 1 hr, 2 hrs, etc. (you pick the time before she is "filled up" again). When helping mothers to udnerstand that breastfeeding satsifies all manner of needs, I tell her that the baby sometimes feeds rapidly and lots of milk is availalbe quite easily (remember how the breast on the other side leaked/spsrayed the baby in the face, etc.) while at other times the milk is there is much small dribs and drabs, perfect for a snack (bedtime or elsewhere!) or just a wetting the whistle or just a taste of something sweet and warm, etc. This is accompanied by far less swallowing but is no less improtant to the baby for obtaining comfort. Furthermore, this explanation makes clear that the breast is never EMPTY of milk. Is it non-nutritive? No. The milk is always a source of nutrition. But the breast is also always a source of comfort and closeness and that is JUST as important as the calorie-rich substance, too. Am losing oxygen.. ... ... . . ... next Def. of LC service: "We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly disguised as impossible situations." Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Homewood, IL)- [log in to unmask] WEB PAGE: http://www.mcs.com/~auerbach/lactation.html