The user, a 32-year-old woman (F), acted as a surrogate for her 36-year-old sister (F) who was unable to carry a pregnancy due to past cancer treatments. The user successfully carried twins using the sister’s embryos, and the delivery occurred three months prior.
Following the birth, the sister requested the user breastfeed the twins, citing the ‘breast is best’ philosophy, which the user initially agreed to facilitate. However, the demands escalated significantly, requiring the user to visit five to six times daily or provide expressed milk for every feeding, conflicting with her full-time job and responsibility to her own four-year-old child. When the user attempted to reduce the frequency, the sister reacted with distress, and the conflict culminated when the sister created a bedroom for the user and expected her to move in solely to feed the infants, leading the user to question her role and feel exploited.
AITA for refusing to continue breastfeeding the twins I was a surrogate for?
As noted by relationship expert and author Terrence Real, ‘Boundaries are not about controlling other people; they are about taking care of ourselves.’ This situation highlights a critical breakdown in establishing and maintaining appropriate boundaries following a major altruistic act.
The OP acted out of significant generosity by surrogacy, followed by an attempt to honor the biological connection through breastfeeding. However, the sister and her husband have demonstrated boundary enmeshment, viewing the OP’s body and time as an extension of the service provided during pregnancy. The husband’s comment about the OP having ‘already done the hard part’ suggests a transactional view of the surrogacy that ignores the ongoing physical and emotional labor involved in lactation and caregiving. The sister’s emotional outburst and creation of a dedicated room show an inability to cope with reality (inability to lactate) by attempting to force the OP into a permanent, non-parental caregiver role.
The OP’s actions to reduce frequency and ultimately leave when boundaries were physically violated (insisting she stay) were appropriate responses to protect her well-being and existing family unit. Moving forward, the OP must communicate clearly that the breastfeeding commitment is now complete or limited strictly to a predetermined, manageable amount of expressed milk, emphasizing that formula feeding is a viable and healthy alternative for the twins. Any future arrangement must be time-bound, mutually agreed upon, and separate from her primary parental and professional duties.
THE COMMENTS SECTION WENT WILD – REDDIT HAD *A LOT* TO SAY ABOUT THIS ONE.
The original poster (OP) finds herself in a difficult position, feeling that her body is being used excessively after fulfilling a significant agreement to carry her sister’s children. Her actions to reduce the demanding breastfeeding schedule stem from the need to balance her professional life, her existing child, and her personal boundaries, directly conflicting with her sister’s expectation of unlimited, round-the-clock service based on the ‘breast is best’ notion.
The central debate is whether the OP fulfilled her primary obligation by carrying the babies to term and providing initial support, or if the extended commitment to act as a full-time milk supply, beyond practical limits, constitutes a reasonable extension of that agreement given the sister’s inability to lactate. Is the OP justified in prioritizing her established life and setting firm limits, or is the sister’s insistence for continued, intensive nursing support understandable given her unique circumstances?
