or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Breasts as sexual objects just doesn't make sense anymore.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Breasts as sexual objects just doesn't make sense anymore.

post #1 of 98
Thread Starter 
I hope this post doesn't offend anyone. I just needed a place to talk about this.

First, I should say that I've never been hugely into incorporating my breasts into sexual play.

When I started breastfeeding, the idea of my breasts being sexual at first seemed silly. I mean, my breasts exist for the purpose of feeding my baby. Why would they be sex objects? It just made no sense to me... That feeling has sort of evolved, though, and now the idea of my breast being sexual seems very very wrong. I don't want my breast to be sexual - AT ALL. It feels disturbing to me to think of them in that way. They are for my infant son. I don't want to have any sexual association with them at all. It just feels wrong.

Sort of along the same lines... I don't see why women can't go topless if men are allowed to do so. Not that I'm running around topless, but I guess I am just saying I don't understand why breasts have to be covered all the time. I know it's because they are viewed as sex objects... which, again, I just do NOT get. At all.

Fortunately, my DH isn't overly into breasts either... so this isn't causing any drama in the bedroom. More just internal drama. I don't mind being sexually indifferent to my breasts... but I don't like the feeling of horror that breasts could possibly be sexual.

I'm probably not making much sense. Am I the only one that feels this way? Can anyone relate or am I just stranded on Crazy Island all by myself?
post #2 of 98
I feel like mine are not sexual either, and feel weird when DH tries to touch them, etc. I am sure some of it is hormones from BF'ing and no sex drive, but yeah, I totally feel you on breasts not being sexual thing.

My DH likes breasts though, so it has been tough for him to see these much bigger boobs that he is not allowed to touch at all.
post #3 of 98
Actually there was a court case in Saskatchewan where I woman was ticketed for driving her jeep topless. She said it was unfair b/c men were allowed to do so. She won! Not sure how many women are utilizing that ruling - but I bet it would really help in a NIP confrontation!
post #4 of 98
That is sooooo funny - I was just trying to figure out this train of thought myself yesterday.

I wonder if this is why nursing toddlers is so frowned upon? I think that if we could stop looking at breasts as a sexual object it would really help........alot of people seriously view it as something close to child molestation (I mean, not that bad, but still)

I was just thinking about women in villages or tribes (not sure where they are) that just walk around topless because their breasts are nothing to them except a way to feed their babies/young.

Soooo, I don't know - but I think that is at the core of the nursing problem.

And luckily my husband isn't a boob person - but I still have libido problems due to nursing ANYWAY!!!
post #5 of 98
nak

i guess i am one of the people that can multi task my boobies! i love my milky boobs! dh does too as long as they don't milk on him.

i don't have a problem with breasts being sexual, but they are more then just for play! they have a job to do too. i find hands sexy but i don't think everyone should wear gloves to protect my delicate sensibilities.

all work and no play makes the milk trucks cranky
post #6 of 98
Yes, breasts are for feeding babies. A woman's wider hips are for birthing babies. Just because those things are functional, doesn't mean they aren't sexually attractive to a man. I think our body parts have multiple purposes....if they weren't appealing to the opposite sex, then there wouldn't be babies to birth and nurse.

A man's broader shoulders aren't for the sole purpose of turning us on....but they do.
post #7 of 98
nak

Quote:
Originally Posted by syd'smom View Post
Actually there was a court case in Saskatchewan where I woman was ticketed for driving her jeep topless. She said it wa unfair b/c men were allowed to do so. She won! Not sure how many women are utilizing that ruling - but I bet it would really help in a NIP confrontation!
i love this


i feel the same way. a male friend recently told me i grossed him out because boobs aren't for feeding: i informed him that he was a huge pig
post #8 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriket View Post
nak

i guess i am one of the people that can multi task my boobies! i love my milky boobs! dh does too as long as they don't milk on him.

i don't have a problem with breasts being sexual, but they are more then just for play! they have a job to do too. i find hands sexy but i don't think everyone should wear gloves to protect my delicate sensibilities.

all work and no play makes the milk trucks cranky
I love this! I know this isn't the OP question/comment, but I think we should be able to love everything about our bodies for their different purposes.
We get so many mixed messages coming in about womens sexuality. It is difficult to feel comfortable and normal that our bodies are amazing, both for sustaining life and looking amazing and feeling lovely. It is tricky.

It is hard to deny sexuality behind breastfeeding (oxytocin release during orgasm and breastfeeding). I think they are interconnected and I hope to one day be in the place of kriket.
post #9 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2xy View Post
Yes, breasts are for feeding babies. A woman's wider hips are for birthing babies. Just because those things are functional, doesn't mean they aren't sexually attractive to a man. I think our body parts have multiple purposes....if they weren't appealing to the opposite sex, then there wouldn't be babies to birth and nurse.

A man's broader shoulders aren't for the sole purpose of turning us on....but they do.
I guess when you think back to early history, where survival was harder, etc. it does make sense. A man was attracted to a woman's breasts and hips BECAUSE they were a sign of fertility, etc. So the reason they are sexualy attractive to men is because they are for feeding.
post #10 of 98
I guess I'm a little different-I think it's silly that women's breasts (especially OMG NIPPLE) are such "dirty" things and must be covered.
However, I do enjoy my husband still playing with my breasts even though I'm breastfeeding-they are 2 totally different sensations.
However, I did have a dream a couple of weeks ago where my husband was sucking on my breasts, trying to get milk and I yelled at him because he was doing it wrong lol. I woke up to my son nursing. Very strange, but funny!
post #11 of 98
Well I read an article that said that breastfeeding is a sexual experience. It was making sense at first, but then as I read on it kind of freaked me out and made my stomach turn because it really said some things that I NEVER heard of in my life.

But many things are multi purposes so I don't understand why it's so hard to accept that breasts may be one of them. They can be sexual, they can be for feeding. That doesn't mean that (all) people think they are dirty just because it's generally seen as something you should cover.
post #12 of 98
i have never thought of bfing as sexual. i didnt find my breasts sexual while bfing either. neither did DH. i weaned DD awhile ago. DH still doesnt think they are too sexual. but we are making progress!
post #13 of 98
Yeah. I don't see mine as sexual at all.

Attractive, maybe, as part of what a PP mentioned was designed to draw a mate, as a sign of my fertility...

But spank material H*LL no!

Maybe once I'm past the exclusive nursing 12 times a day I'll be more receptive to it.
post #14 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriket View Post
nak

i guess i am one of the people that can multi task my boobies! i love my milky boobs! dh does too as long as they don't milk on him.

i don't have a problem with breasts being sexual, but they are more then just for play! they have a job to do too. i find hands sexy but i don't think everyone should wear gloves to protect my delicate sensibilities.

all work and no play makes the milk trucks cranky
OMG! : You rock! I love this and totally agree!
post #15 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriket View Post
nak

i guess i am one of the people that can multi task my boobies! i love my milky boobs! dh does too as long as they don't milk on him.

i don't have a problem with breasts being sexual, but they are more then just for play! they have a job to do too. i find hands sexy but i don't think everyone should wear gloves to protect my delicate sensibilities.

all work and no play makes the milk trucks cranky
:

I enjoy my breasts as sexual, too.

But of course their sexuality is secondary to their primary purpose of feeding and nurturing children. And I believe in babies and small children getting the breast whenever and wherever they happen to want it. Which means I'm all for women feeling comfortable nursing in public.

My girls never liked having their heads draped, either -- so I do find it annoying and stupid when people complain about mothers nursing in public "without a cover-up." I think if you're the sort to be disturbed by that, you should carry a cover-up at all times so you can drape YOURSELF.

So ... I'm cool with breasts being sexual so long as this doesn't interfere with women's freedom to whip-em-out freely in response to their children's wants and needs. And I LOVE that story about the woman driving her pickup topless. I'm going to try to find it now!
post #16 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by kriket View Post
nak

i guess i am one of the people that can multi task my boobies! i love my milky boobs! dh does too as long as they don't milk on him.

i don't have a problem with breasts being sexual, but they are more then just for play! they have a job to do too.
:

nak also


It's like someone saying that mouths should be covered in public just because people *can* do sexual things with them.
post #17 of 98
Thread Starter 
I understand what you are saying with the broad shoulders analogy, but I don't think it entirely works. I mean, men don't have to cover their broad shoulders in public, but we have to cover our breasts. There aren't dirty magazines featuring men's broad shoulders, but there are plenty of dirty magazines (like "Jugs") featuring women's breasts. And the broad shoulder's may be briefly explored in the bedroom, but breasts are often focused on quite heavily. There are a lot of physical features that may be attractive in getting a mate and have other purposes as well... but I don't think any of them are as highly sexualized by our culture the way breasts are.

Breasts are almost a sexual obsession in the U.S. culture. I don't think there is a body part that is exactly parallel to the breasts for drawing such an analogy. The boobs stand alone.

Maybe I'm a prude, but the idea of breastfeeding being a "sexual experience" is really disturbing to me. Like, stomach churning kind of disturbing. This is the same horrible feeling I get when considering my breasts as sex objects. It just feels beyond wrong.

I never thought about it, but I think whoever said this may be why some people have trouble nursing toddlers is right. If we didn't make breasts such "highly important" sex objects, I don't think breastfeeding well into the toddler years and beyond would matter to anyone! I think there would be so much more support for breastfeeding beyond infancy if our culture wasn't placing such strong sexual emphasis on breasts.

These are great posts and an interesting discussion. I hope I haven't offended anyone. I'm not judging anyone that has been able to balance the duel roles of their breasts. I think that's great. I just can't do it. This is my own hang-up and my own problem. I don't know how to get past it - and I don't know if I have a desire to get past it. Talking it out has been great, though. Thank you!!
post #18 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveSweetpea View Post
I understand what you are saying with the broad shoulders analogy, but I don't think it entirely works. I mean, men don't have to cover their broad shoulders in public, but we have to cover our breasts.
I wasn't really referring to the covering aspect when I wrote what I did.

All I was saying is that a functional body part can still be sexually attractive/responsive outside of its primary function.

As for covering.....yeah, Americans (and some other Westerners) are boob obsessed. In other countries, hair has to be covered. Or entire bodies (think burka). In some African countries, the neck is erotic. The Chinese had fetishes for women's tiny, misshapen, crippled feet for hundreds of years. Every culture has its thing.
post #19 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILoveSweetpea View Post
Maybe I'm a prude, but the idea of breastfeeding being a "sexual experience" is really disturbing to me. Like, stomach churning kind of disturbing. This is the same horrible feeling I get when considering my breasts as sex objects. It just feels beyond wrong.
No, I agree. I was reading the "What to expect" and she was talking about how BFing mamas may not be interested in sex because they are having their sexual needs met by breastfeeding uh-huh. whatev. Maybe she isn't interested in sex because she's had a screaming lovie on her boob all day?

anyways, I think that BFing being sexual gets to close to child molestation. Deriving sexual gratification from your child is creepy.

I can't speak to men and their perversion over boobs. I feel like they've taken out toy and made it dirty. We can't have anything nice.
post #20 of 98
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyCatherine185 View Post
I guess when you think back to early history, where survival was harder, etc. it does make sense. A man was attracted to a woman's breasts and hips BECAUSE they were a sign of fertility, etc. So the reason they are sexualy attractive to men is because they are for feeding.
I agree here. I don't think that breasts are inherently sexual (and many cultures are appalled at what we allow men to do to our breasts) but they are a sign of sexual maturity. Generally, a man is not supposed to be attracted to someone so young that they do not have breasts or widened hips.

I can totally see where OP is coming from, though. I never had huge breasts before children, probably on the smaller side of normal. I didn't think of them as sexual objects really. But especially when I had DD2 and was also nursing DD1, my cup size went up to a DDD and men started staring at me and stopping their cars to talk to me, and making comments that were all so very gross. I though it was so nasty. I wanted to yell "my breasts look like this because I'm breastfeeding, you pervs!" Even women started making comments that I must have had breast augmentation and so forth. Ick. I was so skeeved out by it that I was so so so happy when they went back down to normal size a couple years later.

I guess my point is that are breasts are ours, but we have little to no control over their sexualization (I mean short-term control. Yes, we can work to change society, but I'm talking about now) or how others perceive them. That just seems wrong.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Breastfeeding
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Breastfeeding › Breasts as sexual objects just doesn't make sense anymore.