Nutritive and non-nutritive: Yes, Jan, it's a matter of defining our
terms and thinking of the implications and impact of what we say. A breast
is never empty; a bottle is. You don't see starving kids hanging grimly on
to empty bottles sucking air. You do see starving kids clinging to a breast
that they know will sooner or later yield more, even a few more drops. (One
jaundiced scrawny three weeker below birthweight I saw: defined problem was
that she was "always feeding" - on a nipple shield. Actual problem was that
the kid realised the nipple shield made suckling pointless altogether, but
clung on and did not suck, simply waited for more involuntary let-downs as
milk became available in the ducts and dribbled through the shield. Happy
ending: after one day beginning 6am in my house, one decent feed sans
shield, the kid was suckling well and I promised Mum she would have
oversupply within a week. Kid had gained 13 ozs in 5 days, when Mum came
back to fix oversupply problem! I'd never dream of rushing for formula
supplementation in this situation: kids have phenomenal capacity to
recover: but you have to be constantly available to see things are getting
better not worse for the next 24-48 hours minimum. Easiest way for me is to
have the mother in my house for that 24 hours:I realise this isn't
practical for most! we need 24-hour-stay facilities like this for
breastfeeding mothers.) Now that was non-nutritive non-sucking at the
breast. But all other breast sucking, even what I call comfort sucking, is
nutritive at many levels including calories. Watch: it may take 20 little
sucks but there'll be a swallow and it's not all saliva. Who can calculate
what that is in calories per day? (Not to mention the value of enzymes etc.
generated in saliva).

Sucking on dummies, empty teats, or thumbs is non-nutritive even when it is
comforting or useful. No calories go into the baby. Breasts are not dummies
and not bottles. Let's not use the same language where it isn't 100%
accurate. Why demean the breast by likening it to such simple artificial
objects when it is a fabulously complex biological delivery system,
comforter, and nurturer all in one? the more we emphasize the difference,
the more people will get the message. Why do you think teat advertisers
emphasize the alleged closeness of their product to the real thing? And
let's call those artificial objects rubber or silicone teats too: they are
NOT NIPPLES!!! If anyone is not sure of this, ask a randy partner to try
sucking on rubber or silicone. In my exerience, babies appreciate the real
thing at least as much as their daddies do....

Sorry, Jan and anyone else, but I think the language of breast/bottle
equivalence horribly powerful and one of our major problems. It normalises
the abnormal.

Maureen M.