# Duggars are NOT Quiverfull!



## akichan

I'm reading the new Duggar's book, "A Love that Multiplies", and in it they state that they are NOT Quiverfull. They cite Wikipedia as the source of that common misconception.

Interesting, I think it is here on MDC in a forum that I first learned that they were. I know that Wikipedia is not completely reliable, but I believed it because it seemed to fit! I'm glad they cleared that up!


----------



## MusicianDad

The only part of quiverfull that they aren't is Evangelical Christian, they're Baptist. As for everything else? Well if the shoe fits...


----------



## kmeyrick

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MusicianDad*
> 
> The only part of quiverfull that they aren't is Evangelical Christian, they're Baptist. As for everything else? Well if the shoe fits...


Well, Evangelical Christian is an umbrella term and many Baptists fall under it. They're not different denominations.


----------



## kmeyrick

They might mean they are not members of a church or organization that is quiverfull, but they do seem to fit the definition I've always heard- that you allow as many children as God sends your way with no interference.


----------



## HollyBearsMom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kmeyrick*
> 
> They might mean they are not members of a church or organization that is quiverfull, but they do seem to fit the definition I've always heard- that you allow as many children as God sends your way with no interference.


But I thought they did interfere? Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away? If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct?


----------



## kmeyrick

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HollyBearsMom*
> 
> But I thought they did interfere? Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away? If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct?


I don't know. I don't watch the show, and I've heard some say they do wean early, others say they don't.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HollyBearsMom*
> 
> But I thought they did interfere? Doesn't she (the mother) wean her babes early to bring on her cycle so that she can get pregnant again right away? If it was God's will continuing nursing wouldn't interfere, correct?


I feel like I read years ago that I read that she weans before six months to retain fertility.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kmeyrick*
> 
> I don't know. I don't watch the show, and I've heard some say they do wean early, others say they don't.


What I've heard her say is that she usually knows she's pregnant because the one currently on the breast can no longer get enough.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

Here's the problem:

There is no credo that one must sign to be quiverfull. A person who rejects birthcontrol on the basis of their Christian faith is "quiverfull". But they may not be Quiverfull with a capital Q, depending on what that means to them. There is no Quiverfull organization to which a person applies for membership.

Originally, the term simply meant viewing children as blessings, and not using contraception. In that sense, the Duggar's certainly are "quiverfull". So am I. They have 19, I have 3.

Like them, in many contexts I refer not to use that term because other people have taken it and made something it is not. When people point fingers and say "You are Quiverfull, you horrible person", they have taken that term and put under it a whole laundry list of stuff--prairie muffin, hypocrite, ultra patriarchal, abusive, anti-education, etc, etc, etc. It is no longer a descriptor of a single belief (rejection of birth control) but an umbrella used to describe a whole mess of beliefs that have nothing to do with birth control. The Quiverful book, and sites like No Longer Quivering have contributed to this change.

Michelle wrote in the book, and elsewhere, that her fertility returns early, and she has to quit nursing due to issues the pregnancies cause with breastfeeding (severe pain and supply issues, iirc). I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute "weaning early to get pregnant sooner". Because bc is ubiquitous in this culture, it seems hard for people to imagine that a couple could have 19 children without interfering with nature. The Duggar's are unique in their high level of fertility now, but wouldn't have been so 200 years ago. What sets them apart from highly fertile families back then is that all 19 of their children have survived pregnancy and birth and infancy and early childhood. Yet and still, Susannah Wesley (mother of Charles and John, writers of hymns and evangelical revivalists way back when) raised a similar number of children, and was a child of an equally large family. So it happened.


----------



## Bokonon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
> 
> Here's the problem:
> 
> There is no credo that one must sign to be quiverfull. A person who rejects birthcontrol on the basis of their Christian faith is "quiverfull".


This is not true. Catholics are expected to not use birth control because it interferes with God's will.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

I'm not sure how that makes what I wrote "not true".

Catholics are Christian, as far as I know. And there are "quiverfull" Catholics, who have a slightly different take on the issue than the nfp-only catholics.

And that very fact clarifies my point that "quiverfull" does not mean "uber patriarchal reformationist evangelical Vision-Forum-type Christian". It means "no birth control because of my religious beliefs".


----------



## mar123

Evangelical Christians and Baptists are not the same thing. There are many demoninations of the Christian faith. Evangelicals and Baptists are two separate demoninations. And not all Christians practice a specific demonination. Growing up I attended "First Christian Church". That was it. Just Christian.


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
> 
> Originally, the term simply meant viewing children as blessings, and not using contraception. In that sense, the Duggar's certainly are "quiverfull". So am I. They have 19, I have 3.


I thought the original defition was not simply viewing children as blessings, but as gifts from G-d. As such, you take what G-d decides to give naturally. That would mean no children for people who are infertile, but weaning to have children (in my opionion) is also going outside of G-d's plan.

As for her knowing she is pregnant because of the child weaning--- I read on wikipedia they are, on average, 18 months apart. I've also read that she weans before 6 months. You would expect the kids to be under 15 months apart if she was weaning after becoming pregnant but still weaning by 6 months. I don't know, just what I've read.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

Ok, I'm not sure why we're spliting hairs here, but: 1. You got me. I should have expanded and expounded. In my brain "blessings" includes similar phrases like "Gifts from God". And yes, deliberately ttc would be just the other side of the coin as tta pregnancy. Thusly, why I only have 3 children even though I would like gazillions more.

2. I'll take Michelle's word over Wikipedia or internet gossip, any day. Here is an interview with her, very specifically about breastfeeding: http://www.babygooroo.com/index.php/2009/03/30/after-18-children-breastfeeding-for-michelle-duggar-continues-to-be-a-learning-experience/ whi E It explains her position on breastfeeding and the question of timing. Even if she did wean at an early 5 or 6 months on purpose, she gets her cycle back at 6 weeks.

I don't know who started the "weaning early to get pregnant more often" thing, but I think it was likely a bit of malicious gossip, rather than a well-intentioned mistake. If there is an actual quote that can be traced back to Michelle herself, proving she's a liar, I'd be happy to see it and might change my mind.


----------



## Arduinna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> This is not true. Catholics are expected to not use birth control because it interferes with God's will.


I don't see how what you wrote is in conflict with cappuccinosmoms post.


----------



## Bokonon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
> 
> I'm not sure how that makes what I wrote "not true".
> 
> Catholics are Christian, as far as I know. And there are "quiverfull" Catholics, who have a slightly different take on the issue than the nfp-only catholics.
> 
> And that very fact clarifies my point that "quiverfull" does not mean "uber patriarchal reformationist evangelical Vision-Forum-type Christian". It means "no birth control because of my religious beliefs".


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arduinna*
> 
> I don't see how what you wrote is in conflict with cappuccinosmoms post.


I guess because I see Quiverfull as being a movement, with its adherents specifically trying to have as many babies as possible, whereas the whole of Catholicism is supposed to eschew birth control except in the form of natural family planning.


----------



## kmeyrick

Well, that seems to be what Cappucinosmom was saying. For some being quiverfull means not using birth control, while for others it means having as many children as you possibly can.


----------



## kmeyrick

I'd like to add, though, that many people who consider themselves quiverfull also hold other beliefs, which is why sites like No Longer Quivering are necessary.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

*I guess because I see Quiverfull as being a movement, with its adherents specifically trying to have as many babies as possible, whereas the whole of Catholicism is supposed to eschew birth control except in the form of natural family planning.*

This is what I'm trying to point out. Quiverfull is not a monolithic movement. I know Catholics who are very intentional about having gazillions of babies. And others who are very conciencious about NFP use in order to avoid pregnancy. Neither would be QF. But my sister and her husband, who are Catholic, would be. Because they neither try nor avoid, but are of the "take them as they come, God gives them, we welcome them" mindset. I also know people who avoid birthcontrol for faith reasons, and are thus "quiverfull" by that definition, but who look nothing like the nasty negative stereotype that seems to come along with viewing Quiverfull as a movement of people who believe all the same things about everything. Which is why I avoid using the term for myself, unless I know the person I'm talking with understands this. I do not know a single couple who is trying to have "as many babies as possible" on purpose. I know a lot, like me, who because of this view would consider a large family a very good thing. But also like me, the root of the belief is that God is the Creator and it's within his realm of authority to give or not give children. Again, that's why I only have three. If I was trying to have "as many as possible", there are all sorts of avenues I might pursue, which I choose not to, from simple charting to serious fertility treatments. One might accurately say that FLDS are trying to have as many kids as possible, and that they have a vested eternal interest in having 50 kids (neccessitating multiple wives) but the doctrinal basis for that is not even close to the QF belief.

Anytime anyone takes any belief and makes it a system, there is the potential for abuse. And that is why NLQ exists. But the experiences of those individuals do not represent (by a long shot, IMO) the majority of people whose faith leads them to reject birth control. Many of the abusers featured in their articles are not strictly QF, the Charity group and the Pearls, for instance. I know both allow for NFP and non-abortifacient methods.


----------



## blessedwithboys

Disclaimer: I am a huge Duggar fan and think it's awesome how loving and close they all are and I have no issues with the number of children they have because they actually are able to take care of them, both financially and spiritually.

However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them? I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos. It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go. If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.

And IMNSHO, scheduling (or in any other way interfering with) BF could be viewed as interfering with God's plan just as much as BC. So then I might go so far as to say that they wouldn't really be allowing as many babies as God wanted to give them; instead, they were artificially creating an environment where more babies would come than if truly natural BF practices were used.

It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise. I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.


----------



## Marsupialmom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> Disclaimer: I am a huge Duggar fan and think it's awesome how loving and close they all are and I have no issues with the number of children they have because they actually are able to take care of them, both financially and spiritually.
> 
> However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them? I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos. It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go. If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.
> 
> And IMNSHO, scheduling (or in any other way interfering with) BF could be viewed as interfering with God's plan just as much as BC. So then I might go so far as to say that they wouldn't really be allowing as many babies as God wanted to give them; instead, they were artificially creating an environment where more babies would come than if truly natural BF practices were used.
> 
> It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise. I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.


I was tandem nursing number 2 and 3........I got my period back at 6-8 weeks, like with my other two births. Co-sleeping with them both. No pacifiers. Some of use get their fertility back real quick. She does mention she had troubles and I can see that might cause them to come back early, however those things you listed above does not apply to all.


----------



## MusicianDad

Michelle nurses when her baby is hungry as far as I can tell. Even it it's in the middle of a crowded public place. Granted she pulls out that bib thing so she can do it modestly.


----------



## Irishmommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them? I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos. It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go. If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon


Not really. I did all that with both my kids. Got my period at 4 WEEKS with the first one, 12 weeks with the second one.

And you know, considering the rates of breastfeeding in North America, her going to 6 months is pretty damn good.


----------



## TCMoulton

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them?


I'm pretty sure that since she puts her babies directly to her breast that she is a natural nurser (and we know this to be ue since she has been shown nursing on the show on several occasions). The things you mentioned above, while wonderful for mom and baby, are certainly not criteria to determine if one is nursing the proper way.


----------



## elisheva

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> Disclaimer: I am a huge Duggar fan and think it's awesome how loving and close they all are and I have no issues with the number of children they have because they actually are able to take care of them, both financially and spiritually.
> 
> However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them? I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos. It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go. If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.
> 
> And IMNSHO, scheduling (or in any other way interfering with) BF could be viewed as interfering with God's plan just as much as BC. So then I might go so far as to say that they wouldn't really be allowing as many babies as God wanted to give them; instead, they were artificially creating an environment where more babies would come than if truly natural BF practices were used.
> 
> It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise. I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.


Ok, seriously. Like a few PPs I tandem, cosleep, no pacis, wear baby, nurse on demand, etc... and get my fertility back VERY quickly so this whole "ur doin it rong" attitude is just over the top...


----------



## mar123

All women's bodies are different though. Each of my 3 children nursed differently. With no. 1, I breastfed and pumped- I went back to work and had to pump for his bottles. I did this for a year. I started him on solids at 4 months and from everything I read, expected AF to return then. It didn't. I was waking at night to pump so he could have enough BM. He never had one drop of formula. AF returned at 9 months.

No. didn't like switiching from breast to bottle and she prefered the bottle. She had formula from 10-12 months. AF returned at 9 months.

I was a SAHM with baby number three. She never took a bottle at all and nursed on demand for 24 months. She was much later in eating solids, the only one who didn't sleep through the night early on, and woke at night to nurse until around 18 months. AF returned at 9 months.

So even though all of my nursing experiences were different, AF returned at the exact same time for all three.

Michelle Duggar could be the same. I am sure many of her experiences were different. And I highly doubt she weans at 6 weeks. Her nursing her second youngest was shown on TV many times (under a blanket, but still).


----------



## treeoflife3

what does bathing with your babies have to do with nursing? Did I not nurse my kid right because I rarely ever bathed with her? I mean, she's still nursing past her second birthday... but we didn't start routinely bathing together til she could be in a shower with me. Is it pointless to bathe with a formula fed baby? where does bathing factor into correctly nursing?


----------



## User101

According to their first book-- although if one is unwilling to accept the Duggars' own words that they aren't Quiverfull, than I expect one also would assume they were lying about this as well- up until a few babies ago, she breastfed despite being in excruciating pain (she described nursing with tears running down her face) and even so, her fertility returned around 6 months, at which point her supply would dip and she would get pregnant again. I used to believe the internet rumor about weaning purposely to get pregnant as well, but since I'm assuming telling the truth is just as much a part of their moral code as women not wearing pants, I'll take her word on it.

As far as the Quiverfull thing, I think there is Quiverfull-- a movement that started back in the 80s and tends to be very Calvinist by nature (I think the big leaders right now are the Phillips family that run Vision Forum) and quiverfull-- a general openness to children which seems to be ahttp://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1317751/duggars-are-not-quiverfull/20 bit less strident (for example, I've met mothers who identify as quiverfull who might use NFP to space children in the case of poor health of the mother). While the Duggars have an association with Vision Forum and were the main speaker at "The Baby Conference," they seem to be huge followers of Bill Gothard/Advanced Training Institute which, as far as I can tell, does not teach qiuverfull as necessary. So I wonder if they were disassociating themselves with Quiverfull as a movement, because they seem to make it a salvation issue, while still believing in the tenets for themselves personally.

I would consider myself as having quiverfull leanings, although after almost dying with the twins my husband decided to take permanent measures so we wouldn't have more children, but I would not consider myself at all to be part of the Quiverfull movement.

That's all probably clear as mud, LOL!


----------



## Earthiemama

Ok I have been laid up at home for a week and started catching up on this show. Is this for real? I did a search and it appears to be legit but I am amazed . How did I miss this first go around?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## User101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Earthiemama*
> 
> Ok I have been laid up at home for a week and started catching up on this show. Is this for real? I did a search and it appears to be legit but I am amazed . How did I miss this first go around?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Is what for real? The Duggars?


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:
Originally Posted by *treeoflife3* 


> what does bathing with your babies have to do with nursing? Did I not nurse my kid right because I rarely ever bathed with her? I mean, she's still nursing past her second birthday... but we didn't start routinely bathing together til she could be in a shower with me. Is it pointless to bathe with a formula fed baby? where does bathing factor into correctly nursing?


I *think* the point from the earlier poster regarding bathing with baby is that there are certain practices, commonly grouped under "ecological breastfeeding" that generally result in a later return of AF and babies naturally spaced several years apart. Some people argue that if you are going to simply accept how many children "G-d wants" you to have, you should go with what your body biologically would do. It is not a matter of nursing your kid "right" or "wrong". For me, it's kind of like when you say the term "how long did you exclusively breastfeed?" and some people mean only breastmilk, others mean no formula, others mean breastmilk & water... One isn't better or worse, they're just different and it helps if you have some idea what people are talking about, kwim.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *annettemarie*
> 
> According to their first book-- although if one is unwilling to accept the Duggars' own words that they aren't Quiverfull, than I expect one also would assume they were lying about this as well- up until a few babies ago, she breastfed despite being in excruciating pain (she described nursing with tears running down her face) and even so, her fertility returned around 6 months, at which point her supply would dip and she would get pregnant again. I used to believe the internet rumor about weaning purposely to get pregnant as well, but since I'm assuming telling the truth is just as much a part of their moral code as women not wearing pants, I'll take her word on it.


Thanks for the info. I was obviously misinformed. It's not a big thing in my life, so I didn't go looking for additional information.

I do agree with a previous poster, though, that in our society even nursing for "only" 6 months is something to be proud of!


----------



## treeoflife3

okay, but what does bathing have to do with it? is it because you are skin to skin (which would be the 'cuddling naked' bit she mentioned) or is it because then even while being washed, baby can nurse (which would be the 'pacifying at the breast' bit that was mentioned.) or does actually being in soap and water together actually have anything to do with nursing? I'm not getting how bathing with your baby has anything at all to do with nursing. My baby was bathed in a baby tub and she never desired to nurse while she was being bathed and we had plenty of skin on skin contact outside of her actually being washed... but because we didn't bathe together does that mean I didn't nurse 'naturally?' what does bathing WITH your baby have to do with nursing at all?


----------



## User101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*
> 
> okay, but what does bathing have to do with it? is it because you are skin to skin (which would be the 'cuddling naked' bit she mentioned) or is it because then even while being washed, baby can nurse (which would be the 'pacifying at the breast' bit that was mentioned.) or does actually being in soap and water together actually have anything to do with nursing? I'm not getting how bathing with your baby has anything at all to do with nursing. My baby was bathed in a baby tub and she never desired to nurse while she was being bathed and we had plenty of skin on skin contact outside of her actually being washed... but because we didn't bathe together does that mean I didn't nurse 'naturally?' what does bathing WITH your baby have to do with nursing at all?


It has noting to do with it. It's not even one of the steps in the ecological breastfeeding book.


----------



## littleplum

How can you tell if you have your "period" at 4-6 weeks post partum? I still had lochia at six weeks.


----------



## Irishmommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littleplum*
> 
> How can you tell if you have your "period" at 4-6 weeks post partum? I still had lochia at six weeks.


I didn't have my "period" at 4 weeks. I had my period at 4 weeks. No quotes needed. And it was because my lochia had stopped the week before, and when I started bleeding again (my period), I spoke with my midwife. And because at 8 weeks pp I got a period. And 12 weeks. And 16 weeks. See where this is going?

Yes, I'm still bitter I didn't get months of period free living.


----------



## littleplum

Sorry, I put period in quotes because I didn't know that you knew for a fact that you had ovulated. I primarily have anovulatory cycles, so I have very few periods per year (only one last year, in fact). And since I'm not currently TTC, I would have no idea if my next bleed is a period or an anovulatory bleed. So, when I refer to my own times of bleeding, I use quotes around period.

Again, I apologize for the misunderstanding!

(And now I'm jealous that you only had three weeks of lochia.)


----------



## Arduinna

I'm still trying to figure out why it matters if they are quiverfull or not in the long run anyway?


----------



## Storm Bride

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littleplum*
> 
> (And now I'm jealous that you only had three weeks of lochia.)


Me, too...but I still think I got the best of that one. My shortest period-free post-partum time was four months...and I went...hmm...18 months? with dd2. (It was only a few months ago, and I've already forgotten, but it was about 18.) I think I can take the trade-off of 5-8 weeks of lochia!


----------



## frugalmum

I remember michelle saying they decided to be open to as many children as god wished to give them... in my book that is quiverful enough, even if not "official." There's no official membership card for being quiverful. They may just not want to be identified with the movement, who knows? I am open to as many children as god will give me but I don't fit into the quiverful mold. If there were an extreme reason I would use BC but it would have to be a VERY serious issue.


----------



## cappuccinosmom

My guess is that the Duggars, like many of us, do not want to be locked into a box. Particularly a box that has taken on a very negative and even creepy connotation in the last several years, due to rampant stereotyping.


----------



## Viola

I think of quiverfull as just a generic term for Christians who don't want to use birth control. I have friends who only use NFP, I think of them as quiverful. But, yeah, Quiverfull as a named kind of movement, I can see why they'd reject the term. On the other hand, I get the feeling with the Duggars its more than just about being open to God giving them children. I don't know why I feel that way, but I feel like they are trying to have as many children as they possibly can for a number of reasons.

I went 10 months with no period with my first baby, a baby who nursed quite frequently. I didn't start ovulating until after a year, however. My second baby went longer between nursings, and I got my period back at 4 months, but I felt like I was ovulating the month before that. So I don't think that exclusive breastfeeding means you won't get pregnant, but honestly, I did not have the libido after my second pregnancy, so the sex wasn't there. I've had sex fewer times in the last 2 years than they have children. I guess they must really like sex and make it a priority in their lives.


----------



## pers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them? I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos. It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go. If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.


Bathing and nude cuddling are required now for natural nursing? Really? Seems every time I turn around, more requirements are being added. I know bathing and skin to skin can help with fussy babies who won't nurse, but seriously, how are they requirements? How are you somehow not really nursing right if you aren't nude and bathing together?

In any case, I did do all that with all three kids. And with my first, my period did stay away for an entire year exactly - lovely present for me on my kid's first birthday







. But then with my second, I got it back at seven freaking weeks, and I was tandem nursing... omg. Then with my third, not tandem nursing that time, so just one baby on the boob constantly, and again, back right around seven weeks.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *littleplum*
> 
> How can you tell if you have your "period" at 4-6 weeks post partum? I still had lochia at six weeks.


Lochia stopped a little before two weeks for me. With my second, which was the first time I got my period back early, I thought it probably was a strange late return of lochia (plus a bit of cramping) since I'd heard that could happen. Then when it happened again four weeks later just the same I was all, really really late return of lochia? Right? Because it couldn't possibly be a period already... then four weeks later I was all darn it, because there was absolutely no denying it that time, and thank goodness we'd been using condoms and not relying on breastfeeding.


----------



## akichan

WOW! I haven't logged on in a while so I'm really surprised to see so many posts! I'm mostly with Annettemarie . . .


----------



## akichan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
> 
> My guess is that the Duggars, like many of us, do not want to be locked into a box. Particularly a box that has taken on a very negative and even creepy connotation in the last several years, due to rampant stereotyping.


Agree. I heard somewhere that being "Quiverful" is TRYING to have as many children as possible so you could raise them as Conservative Christians and basically take over the world. Yikes. Who WOULD want to be associated with that, really?


----------



## TiredX2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *akichan*
> 
> Agree. I heard somewhere that being "Quiverful" is *TRYING to have as many children as possible* so you could raise them as Conservative Christians and basically take over the world. Yikes. Who WOULD want to be associated with that, really?


Well, the Duggars seem there (actively trying to have as many children as possible) to me. JMO.


----------



## swede

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> Disclaimer: I am a huge Duggar fan and think it's awesome how loving and close they all are and I have no issues with the number of children they have because they actually are able to take care of them, both financially and spiritually.
> 
> However, every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them? I had major struggles with ds1 and got AF back at 5 mos but had fewer issues with ds2 and didn't get it til 11mos. It took 3-4mos for me to "discover" AP with ds1 but was super-crunchy with ds2 from the get-go. If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon.
> 
> And IMNSHO, scheduling (or in any other way interfering with) BF could be viewed as interfering with God's plan just as much as BC. So then I might go so far as to say that they wouldn't really be allowing as many babies as God wanted to give them; instead, they were artificially creating an environment where more babies would come than if truly natural BF practices were used.
> 
> It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise. I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.


Do you mean "ecological breastfeeding"? I have never read that "bathing with your baby" is necessary for ecological breastfeeding/LAM.


----------



## choli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frugalmum*
> 
> I remember michelle saying they decided to be open to as many children as god wished to give them... in my book that is quiverful enough, even if not "official." There's no official membership card for being quiverful. They may just not want to be identified with the movement, who knows? I am open to as many children as god will give me but I don't fit into the quiverful mold. If there were an extreme reason I would use BC but it would have to be a VERY serious issue.


Quiverful enough for what?


----------



## mar123

If my dh and I had sex without b/c everytime I ovulated, we would have had many kids- I am VERY fertile. I am also ALWAYS in the mood when I am ovulating. That may be the case for Michelle- it may not be actively trying to have many kids as possible, but simply following biology. That is the way we are made. (It's also why my dh had a V, also known as the best present he ever gave me, LOL) If Michelle was not as fertile, I don't believe she would have taken measures to get PG. She is simply following the biological nature of her body without any interference at all.


----------



## MrsSurplus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> If my dh and I had sex without b/c everytime I ovulated, we would have had many kids- I am VERY fertile. I am also ALWAYS in the mood when I am ovulating. That may be the case for Michelle- it may not be actively trying to have many kids as possible, but simply following biology. That is the way we are made. (It's also why my dh had a V, also known as the best present he ever gave me, LOL) If Michelle was not as fertile, I don't believe she would have taken measures to get PG. She is simply following the biological nature of her body without any interference at all.


Absolutely! 3.75 years ago (when I was just shy of 40) DH and I decided that we'd let God determine our family size (a year after #4 was born). We don't "try" to get pregnant, but we don't try not to. I have been bed-sharing (with 2 children and a husband) and tandem nursing (on cue) for the past 3 years and we just found out that we are expecting the THIRD baby since that decision was made. (Did I mention that I'm almost 44 and that I have been nursing at least 2 children for the past 3 years????) Obviously, we're all different. In August of 2007 we made that decision. Next baby was born in May of '08. Next baby in February of '10. This one is due in March of 2012. If we had made that decision years ago - at the ages Michelle and Jim Bob did, I have no reason to believe we wouldn't have been similarly blessed with such a large tribe. (Well, except that Michelle is infinitely more patient and God-focused than I am...who knows how I would have held up...or if I would have relied on God much sooner than I did to help me through the challenges unique to life with a passle of Littles.)

Also, I would not call myself "Quiverfull" because that "camp" frequently has a lot of patriarchal stuff with it that I don't necessarily buy. And I do know that *some* "Quiverfull" types DO try to have as many babies as possible - but that is not true for most. For most that I'm aware of (and for DH and I), the idea is that if God is truly in control of your life - if you have submitted all areas to Him - it makes sense to respect His design for your family size. That is, we don't try to manipulate our family size either through birth control, Natural Family Planning *OR* through actively seeking to increase fertility (either by early weaning or by medical means, etc...) - we trust that God knows what He's doing (and that He meant it when He said children are a blessing).


----------



## chickabiddy

I'm sorry, I can't get this below the quote.

I use NFP (for personal, not religious, reasons). I've been married over 20 years. I have one child, by choice. I will only have one child, again, by my choice. NFP most definitely does not equal quiverful.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Viola*
> 
> I have friends who only use NFP, I think of them as quiverful.


----------



## MusicianDad

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chickabiddy*
> 
> I'm sorry, I can't get this below the quote.
> 
> I use NFP (for personal, not religious, reasons). I've been married over 20 years. I have one child, by choice. I will only have one child, again, by my choice. NFP most definitely does not equal quiverful.












NFP is birth control, and an effective one too when it's used properly. Quiverfull couples won't use NFP because they don't consider it leaving pregnancy up to God.


----------



## brandimn6217

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> It just really sounds to me like she has so many problems nursing that her period comes back sooner than it might otherwise. I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.


I never really had any issues nursing, did natural nursing as you call it (I always just called it nursing







) and still my babies are almost exactly 2 yrs apart. AF appeared at about 9ish months. My bff also did all the above and her AF didn't come back til 14ish months but her babies are closer together than mine! I'm not disagreeing with your point but I think 3 yrs is a bit much. Even in tribal cultures where BF is the only form of BC, most of their children are about 2 years apart.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cappuccinosmom*
> 
> Here's the problem:
> 
> There is no credo that one must sign to be quiverfull. A person who rejects birthcontrol on the basis of their Christian faith is "quiverfull". But they may not be Quiverfull with a capital Q, depending on what that means to them. There is no Quiverfull organization to which a person applies for membership.
> 
> Originally, the term simply meant viewing children as blessings, and not using contraception. In that sense, the Duggar's certainly are "quiverfull". So am I. They have 19, I have 3.
> 
> Like them, in many contexts I refer not to use that term because other people have taken it and made something it is not. When people point fingers and say "You are Quiverfull, you horrible person", they have taken that term and put under it a whole laundry list of stuff--prairie muffin, hypocrite, ultra patriarchal, abusive, anti-education, etc, etc, etc. It is no longer a descriptor of a single belief (rejection of birth control) but an umbrella used to describe a whole mess of beliefs that have nothing to do with birth control. The Quiverful book, and sites like No Longer Quivering have contributed to this change.
> 
> Michelle wrote in the book, and elsewhere, that her fertility returns early, and she has to quit nursing due to issues the pregnancies cause with breastfeeding (severe pain and supply issues, iirc). I'm pretty sure that doesn't constitute "weaning early to get pregnant sooner". Because bc is ubiquitous in this culture, it seems hard for people to imagine that a couple could have 19 children without interfering with nature. The Duggar's are unique in their high level of fertility now, but wouldn't have been so 200 years ago. What sets them apart from highly fertile families back then is that all 19 of their children have survived pregnancy and birth and infancy and early childhood. Yet and still, Susannah Wesley (mother of Charles and John, writers of hymns and evangelical revivalists way back when) raised a similar number of children, and was a child of an equally large family. So it happened.


AMEN AND AMEN! Esp not liking to use that term to describe my beliefs about childbearing. In many ways, I believe that people have taken the wonderful blessing and joy of the quiverful movement and made it either something ugly, abusive and negligent OR the proponents of quiverful have turned it into a dogma. You HAVE to be quiverful type thing. If we are turning the bearing of children and acceptance of God's will in having them or not into dogma, into WHO I am, into WHAT and HOW I believe, I are am NOT accepting God's will because I am merely making my children and my fertility into an idol to worship, which, no matter how well-meaning, is unacceptable to God.

I used to use the term quiverful to describe myself, though I no longer do so unless I am talking to someone who understands what I mean. Once I saw that movie that came out a few years ago, I stopped though. There was the lady from NLQ, I believe in it, another woman who ran a homeschool publishing co with her DH and a lady who had 8 children and a patriarical family. The woman with the hs co seemed to be very sweet and loving. The woman with the 8 children honestly scared me. She was like what I call a femi-nazi. You know those feminist type women who would rather die than give up feminism, who are angry, who are determined to be as unfeminine as possible? Those are femi-nazis. This woman seemed like that about having children. She was on a mission to change the world into quivering (pun intended) families and there wasn't love and gentleness portrayed about her, though that might admittedly have been editing of the film. After that, I stopped referring to myself as quiverful. I also don't refer to myself according to the denominational terms. What's the point? We are called to unity and quite honestly, it can and does just become another idol.

I think we should all applaud Michelle Duggar for standing up to the criticism of the world about following God's plan and call on her life; about living a life with children and joy; for having well spoken, well behaved children in a world that doesn't even use common terms of respect like Mrs. or even Miss anymore; for standing before the gossiping hordes of people who talk about her and her choices and what they believe is the silliness of it and refusing to back down, to cower and be afraid of all that. Honestly, I admire her and JimBob too. I admire the children they have raised with life skills and attitudes of honor and dignity in the face of criticism. I admire the fact that they are not refusing more children because of Baby Josie and all those issues.


----------



## SilverFish

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brandimn6217*
> The woman with the 8 children honestly scared me. She was like what I call a femi-nazi. You know those feminist type women who would rather die than give up feminism, who are angry, who are determined to be as unfeminine as possible? Those are femi-nazis.


oh, i thought it was those feminists who rounded up all the men-folk and sent them to Auschwitz...


----------



## brandimn6217




----------



## lilyka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mar123*
> 
> Evangelical Christians and Baptists are not the same thing. There are many demoninations of the Christian faith. Evangelicals and Baptists are two separate demoninations. And not all Christians practice a specific demonination. Growing up I attended "First Christian Church". That was it. Just Christian.


Most Baptist are Evangelicals but not all Evangelicals are Baptist. Evangelical is a broader umbrella protestants gather under. For example my inlaws are baptist who are Evangelicals. They attend a lutheran church (well lutheran light) because it is more evangelical than their baptist church but they still consider themselves baptist.

Just like all millinialists are protestants but not all protestants are millinialists.


----------



## lilyka

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *treeoflife3*
> 
> okay, but what does bathing have to do with it? is it because you are skin to skin (which would be the 'cuddling naked' bit she mentioned) or is it because then even while being washed, baby can nurse (which would be the 'pacifying at the breast' bit that was mentioned.) or does actually being in soap and water together actually have anything to do with nursing? I'm not getting how bathing with your baby has anything at all to do with nursing. My baby was bathed in a baby tub and she never desired to nurse while she was being bathed and we had plenty of skin on skin contact outside of her actually being washed... but because we didn't bathe together does that mean I didn't nurse 'naturally?' what does bathing WITH your baby have to do with nursing at all?


nothing.


----------



## GoldenSeal

I did the natural nursing, bathed with my babies, co sleeping, nursing on demand. I birthed my last three at home and they stayed with me at ALL times. I'm pregnant with baby number 6 in about 6 1/2 years. I breastfed ON DEMAND! Heck! My babies didn't lose any weight after being born (I'm told most lose up to %10 of their weight the first 24hrs after being born) and gained a 1lb a week for the first three months. I would wake my babies up to feed if they slept longer than 4 hours. My AFalways returned 2 months after giving birth. I only bled for 2 weeks after giving birth. I DESPERATELY tried to breastfeed for as long as possible. I wanted to do it for at least a year and I've been close (10 months) but about 3 months after getting pregnant my milk supply dries up for me.

It can and does happen where the breastfeeding alone doesn't keep AF away. My babies got only breast milk . Nipples weren't sore had the nurse come out to make sure they were nursing properly. My body just seems to be extremely fertile.


----------



## mamaler0y

I know this is a few years old but she has stated in interviews that she starts to give rice cereal at 6 weeks. THAT IS WEANING!!!


----------



## VocalMinority

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blessedwithboys*
> 
> ...every time this topic comes up I can't help but wonder if Michelle truly practices "natural" nursing. By that I mean, does she nurse ASAP after birth, does she co-sleep, does she pacify at the breast, does she BW, does she bathe with her babies, does she cuddle naked with them?... If Michelle has BF issues to begin with, and then compounds them by doing any type of scheduled feedings (or hands her baby off to a "buddy" throughout the day), it's no wonder she bleeds again so soon...
> 
> I bet if she had smoother sailing at the breast and was able to go to toddlerhood, she would only have a baby every 3 years.


I'm up too early and randomly reading this old post, but I'll be pleased if someone ends up addressing my question anyway. It does deviate from focusing on the Duggars, but I believe we're not supposed to lift quotes from one thread and put them in another, right?

So: *does BF/AP of infants really work this way for everyone, or for most mothers?*

With my youngest, I did everything blessedwithboys recommends in the 1st part of her post and none of the things that she suggests hasten the return of one's menstrual cycle.* Yet, my regular cycle returned within a few months, just like it had with my older twins, who were in the NICU for 4 months and whom I couldn't hold much during that time and was never able to BF.

I did BF/AP because it seemed instinctive, not because I'd researched it beforehand or hoped for a specific side-effect. But I did hear from my midwife that breastfeeding should postpone the need for birth control (or NFP in our case, as we're Catholic). I was disappointed that it didn't work that way, for me. Is that really so unusual?

______________________

*Unless she strictly means that letting anyone - including husband/dad - *ever* hold/bond with the baby defeats BF/AP; but surely she doesn't mean that? I assumed blessedwithboys is talking about regularly having someone else carry/care for a baby for significant stretches between nursing, so she can get things done without wearing the baby.


----------



## Viola

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chickabiddy*
> 
> I'm sorry, I can't get this below the quote.
> 
> I use NFP (for personal, not religious, reasons). I've been married over 20 years. I have one child, by choice. I will only have one child, again, by my choice. NFP most definitely does not equal quiverful.


Oh wow, so this is almost 2 years old, but I never read this response. To clarify, I know certain Christians who are open to God giving as many children as He wills, but they practice NFP. NFP doesn't circumvent the will of God as active contraception would, because the possibility is always there--I'm not speaking scientifically. I know it is possible to have unprotected sex and just not get pregnant because of when you are ovulating and all that. Now I could argue that since birth control isn't 100% effective, and since God is omnipotent, you are always open to the possibility of God giving your children when you perform a certain type of sex act even if you use contraception. I've known people who have gotten pregnant while taking oral contraceptives, and even a few weeks after the depo provera shot. However, I think the idea is that philosophically, your willingness is not compromised by NFP, at least in some religious circles.

So I know people who I think of as quiverful who do practice NFP, but I know plenty of people who practice NFP who are not quiverful. That's what I was trying to say here. But since quiverful does seem like actively trying to conceive as many children as you can, then my friends would probably not fit.

If I practiced NFP, I would still have to use a barrier method during certain times of the month, because I only want to have sex when I'm ovulating, and I've gotten pregnant having sex 3 days before ovulation, which isn't that unusual. But I know someone who practiced NFP and got pregnant with ovulation that occurred 7 days after intercourse. That had never happened to her before, but since I wouldn't want to get pregnant at all, and my desire tracks with my fertility, I have never wanted to do straight NFP. So I don't know if you can be quiverful if you actively decide not to have sex when you want it because pregnancy might result. I don't know that much about it. My original thought was just that most people use the term to mean they are open to the possibility of God's will.


----------



## pers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VocalMinority*
> 
> I'm up too early and randomly reading this old post, but I'll be pleased if someone ends up addressing my question anyway. It does deviate from focusing on the Duggars, but I believe we're not supposed to lift quotes from one thread and put them in another, right?
> 
> So: *does BF/AP of infants really work this way for everyone, or for most mothers?*
> 
> With my youngest, I did everything blessedwithboys recommends in the 1st part of her post and none of the things that she suggests hasten the return of one's menstrual cycle.* Yet, my regular cycle returned within a few months, just like it had with my older twins, who were in the NICU for 4 months and whom I couldn't hold much during that time and was never able to BF.
> 
> I did BF/AP because it seemed instinctive, not because I'd researched it beforehand or hoped for a specific side-effect. But I did hear from my midwife that breastfeeding should postpone the need for birth control (or NFP in our case, as we're Catholic). I was disappointed that it didn't work that way, for me. Is that really so unusual?
> 
> ______________________
> 
> *Unless she strictly means that letting anyone - including husband/dad - *ever* hold/bond with the baby defeats BF/AP; but surely she doesn't mean that? I assumed blessedwithboys is talking about regularly having someone else carry/care for a baby for significant stretches between nursing, so she can get things done without wearing the baby.


I think it works for a lot of people, most people even, but no, it does not for everyone and I would absolutely not recommend relying on it. With my first, I got my period back right around her first birthday. With my second, my first was still nursing quite a bit too too, but for some reason I got my period back at seven weeks. I didn't believe it was a period a first, I thought it was a late return of the bleeding after birth (though that had stopped five or six weeks before), but then it came again four weeks later and four weeks after that... With my third I got it back at seven weeks again (not tandem nursing that time).

I nursed on demand (baby anyway, toddler nursed several times a day when tandem nursing, but sometimes was told to wait), co-slept, and used a wrap and sling a lot. I did put my babies in a swing occasionally as I was home alone with no one else to hold the baby, but I don't believe that there has ever been a society where the mother held the baby 100% of time without handing her off to a grandmother for twenty minutes here or there, and with my second the reason for putting him the swing was generally so my toddler could nurse.


----------



## pek64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bokonon*
> 
> This is not true. Catholics are expected to not use birth control because it interferes with God's will.


Catholics can use natural family planning.


----------



## pek64

I've read that the amount of time spent nursing impacts return of fertility, especially at night. So a child who is nursing off and on at night would trigger the hormones that keep fertility at bay. I don't know if there's a lot of research on this to support or refute it, but I'm putting it out there for debate.


----------

