God intended purpose of breasts? - Page 3

[TzippityDoulah]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

But I think ursusarctos is quite right - we have really separated sex from fertility. This isn't really surprising, since the vast majority of people in the West of child-bearing age control their fertility pretty strictly.

yep, that's a very good thought!

[mammal_mama]

I think breast-stimulation can certainly be enjoyed as part of sexual foreplay -- and, as others have pointed out, so can other body parts. And our breasts can also be part of our overall picture that makes us sexually-attractive. As can eyes, hair, legs, necks, hands, ears, feet, toes, etcetera.

The only problem I have with the breast-sex association, is the ways in which some people (including and especially some church people) use it to make it more difficult for mothers to freely nurse their babies and young children whenever and wherever the children want to nurse.

And I don't know about everyone else's children -- but mine were never into having their heads draped while eating. Except that my oldest did go through a phase (between the ages of 1 1/2 and about 3) of thinking it was really fun to get up under my big t-shirts to nurse, and have me peeking down at her through the neck-opening!

And I actually did get harassed one time when dd1 was 2 and was nursing in this way -- TOTALLY COVERED by my big t-shirt. And I was thinking, why on earth would anyone complain -- we're using a cover, LOL.

So, to me, breasts-as-erotic is a totally cool concept -- so long as no one tries to eroticize them beyond, say, lips or eyes or hands, and essentially equate breastfeeding in public with urinating, defacating, changing a tampon, or having sex in public.

And, yeah, it's fine to call it an "intimate" activity -- I certainly do see it as intimate: it's just intimate like stroking my child's face, or hugging, or saying I love you -- NOT intimate like having sex, you know?

Maybe Kathy Dettwyler has been working so hard to separate breasts from sex because she sees this as the ONLY way for Western society to get over its squeamishness with public breastfeeding, and create a more breastfeeding-friendly society.

But I say: sexual is good. Erotic is good. And eating certainly has a sensual component -- so breastfeeding does, too. But I don't know of ANY society that says people should only eat in the privacy of their own homes ... or that if they eat in a public place, they need to erect a tent around themselves to protect others from having to see it.

So, sexualize breasts all you (general you) want to sexualize them -- just don't commit the SIN of taking this cup of nourishment from innocent children, through the harrassment and victimization of their mothers.

[mamabadger]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

Maybe Kathy Dettwyler has been working so hard to separate breasts from sex because she sees this as the ONLY way for Western society to get over its squeamishness with public breastfeeding, and create a more breastfeeding-friendly society.

But I say: sexual is good. Erotic is good. And eating certainly has a sensual component -- so breastfeeding does, too. But I don't know of ANY society that says people should only eat in the privacy of their own homes ... or that if they eat in a public place, they need to erect a tent around themselves to protect others from having to see it.

So, sexualize breasts all you (general you) want to sexualize them -- just don't commit the SIN of taking this cup of nourishment from innocent children, through the harrassment and victimization of their mothers.

I like this perspective. I can understand the effort to de-sexualize breasts in order to create more acceptance of breastfeeding. The problem is, any effort like this is doomed to failure if it involved suppressing or pretending to ignore personal realities. Men might consciously agree that breasts are not sexual, that our society has confused ideas about breasts, etc, but cannot help but be aware that he still finds them erotic. Women might also agree, and keep quiet about the fact that their breasts are a big part of sexual foreplay, maybe even feel guilty about it. Successful lactivism has to acknowledge these things, not just wish them away.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by mamabadger

Successful lactivism has to acknowledge these things, not just wish them away.

And I certainly agree with acknowledging it, in the same sense that I can acknowledge that all eating is sensual to some degree ... and of course hands, lips, hair necks, etcetera are sexual turn-ons for some people.

And since I can "acknowledge" the sensual or sexual component of putting food into my own sexy mouth with my own sexy hands, without feeling a need to drape my own head while eating, I can also acknowledge the sensual aspect of breastfeeding without feeling a need to drape my own child's head while she is eating.

[AutumnSunshine]

Interesting question to pose. I wrote a rather lengthy blog post on this issue eons ago, from a religious perspective and also based on what I learned in a Sexuality and Breastfeeding session at a LLL conference.

http://islamicparenting.blogspot.com...sexuality.html

(Yes, I've been away for a while. We moved recently!)

[CrunchyChristianMama]

I think we've gotten really far from what the OP asked about. Her questions was from a Christian perspective, did God create breasts to be sexual. A pp pointed out several verses that clearly show the Bible referring to breasts as sexual. So (again, from a Christian perspective), they ARE sexual. It's not something wrong with our culture. In fact, you could say that there is something wrong with cultures that have de-sexualized them.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

I think we've gotten really far from what the OP asked about. Her questions was from a Christian perspective, did God create breasts to be sexual. A pp pointed out several verses that clearly show the Bible referring to breasts as sexual. So (again, from a Christian perspective), they ARE sexual. It's not something wrong with our culture. In fact, you could say that there is something wrong with cultures that have de-sexualized them.

Again, breasts being sexual doesn't have to be a problem for breastfeeding.

Heck, as I've already said, mouths and tongues are sexual and we manage okay with using them to eat in public, and don't expect people to eat under a blanket, right?

I think the only reason why there's such a strong desire, among many breastfeeding moms, to de-sexualize breasts, is that some people's manner of sexualizing breasts, gets in the way of breastfeeding babies getting to eat whenever and wherever they happen to be when they get hungry or want to suck for comfort.

There is something very, very wrong, in that there's this taboo around babies getting to eat, that isn't there around older children and adults getting to eat.

Also, for cultures that don't use breasts as part of their sexual foreplay -- I guess you're saying there might be something wrong becasue they're being "unScriptural" in their approach to sex? Meaning, I guess, that if it doesn't turn me on to hear that my hair is like a flock of goats -- there is something wrong with me?

Seems a tad legalistic to me!

[CrunchyChristianMama]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

Also, for cultures that don't use breasts as part of their sexual foreplay -- I guess you're saying there might be something wrong becasue they're being "unScriptural" in their approach to sex? Meaning, I guess, that if it doesn't turn me on to hear that my hair is like a flock of goats -- there is something wrong with me?

Seems a tad legalistic to me!

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that every woman is sexually stimulated by her breasts. What I'm saying is that to say that because some cultures don't view breasts as sexual doesn't mean that (some/many/most) Americans are wrong to view them as sexual since it's clearly scriptural to do so.

And the difference with not covering your mouth while you eat because mouths can also be sexual just doesn't seem like a good comparison to me. You don't cover your mouth while not eating, so there's no need to do so while you are eating. Those who believe women should cover while nursing believe so not because there is eating going on, but because they believe in general that breasts should be covered except for during intimate times between husband and wife while in the privacy of wherever they are being intimate.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by Evie's Mama

I think you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that every woman is sexually stimulated by her breasts. What I'm saying is that to say that because some cultures don't view breasts as sexual doesn't mean that (some/many/most) Americans are wrong to view them as sexual since it's clearly scriptural to do so.

Yes, I must have misunderstood you, because it seemed like you were saying there might be something wrong with cultures where breasts aren't sexualized.

I think there's no shame in getting turned on by whatever we each individually are turned on by -- whether or not it's what turns someone else on. The problems come in, when adult fetishes start to interfere with the rights of children.

And the difference with not covering your mouth while you eat because mouths can also be sexual just doesn't seem like a good comparison to me. You don't cover your mouth while not eating, so there's no need to do so while you are eating. Those who believe women should cover while nursing believe so not because there is eating going on, but because they believe in general that breasts should be covered except for during intimate times between husband and wife while in the privacy of wherever they are being intimate.

I think where it gets difficult, is that for some people, you're not sufficiently covered unless you make your baby eat with a blanket over his/her head. Not all babies like to eat like that.

When I've breastfed in public, my nursing child has covered the portion of my breast that wasn't covered by my top. So the only risk of (momentary) nipple exposure, was in the moments of the child getting latched on or getting off of the breast.

My older dd didn't like eating with a blanket over her head, and by the time my younger dd came along, I was comfortable enough to not even feel a need for a blanket.

I feel that if someone's worried about the risk of seeing a bit of nipple, they can do what most men do, which is glance away when they see that a mother is nursing.

As I keep saying, I have absolutely no problem with breasts being seen as sexual, so long as other people seeing them as sexual doesn't get in the way of me being able to freely nurse my child.

[Crunchy Frog]

I believe in evolution. In that sense, the primary purpose of breasts is to nourish young, but I also believe that our ancestors had sexual swellings similar to those of our nearest ape relatives, and that when those disappeared with the arrival of an upright gain, they got replaced by substitute sexual swellings.

I think there's an evolutionary reason why men find round plump breasts, round plump buttocks, and round plump red lips to be sexy.

This is just my view, and I don't expect it to be very popular here.

[lilyka]

of course the purpose of breast is feeding a baby and the purpose of legs is for walking and the butt is for sitting upon and counter weighting our boobs so we don't tip over, our eye lashes are to keep crap out of our eyes, our lips are for all the things lips do...but they are all sexy. Duh, they are attatched to women. All our functional parts are super hot and all our parts are functional some how. We can't help it. Thats just how we are made. Just because something has a function doesn't mean it ceases to be beautiful.

[Bluegoat]

Originally Posted by lilyka

of course the purpose of breast is feeding a baby and the purpose of legs is for walking and the butt is for sitting upon and counter weighting our boobs so we don't tip over, our eye lashes are to keep crap out of our eyes, our lips are for all the things lips do...but they are all sexy. Duh, they are attatched to women. All our functional parts are super hot and all our parts are functional some how. We can't help it. Thats just how we are made. Just because something has a function doesn't mean it ceases to be beautiful.

Ah, so I have a big butt to counter-weigh against my boobs!

You always make me laugh lilyka!

[Purple Sage]

Originally Posted by Bluegoat

Ah, so I have a big butt to counter-weigh against my boobs!

You always make me laugh lilyka!

That really made me laugh! I have a big butt, but it surely isn't there to counteract my tiny boobs.

[lilyka]

big butts are hot and functional. Butts are multi functional. and so fun!

[hotmamacita]

Originally Posted by sbrinton

Not to open a can of worms here, but...

I've read a lot on here about how the "God intended purpose of breasts" is feeding babies. While I agree totally that breasts were made for breastfeeding, does anyone else see that breasts are sexy?

As a Christian, there are more than a few examples in the Bible of men finding women's bodies attractive and this seems to be how God intended things...

Nourishment is key.

But then there is the "song of solomon." One of my favourite books of the Bible.

[treeoflife3]

I enjoy sexual play MORE now that I breastfeed. I've also noticed that when my husband enjoys them quite a bit, my milk production goes up a tad. Between wanting more intercourse and helping with my supply for my current breastfeeding child... I'd say they are meant for multiple functions.

I'm not sure I believe in G-d, but if there is one I think it is perfectly plausible that He intended for them to be used during sex and to nourish babies and children. It seems to just generally help everything altogether.

If for some absurd reason I could only use my breasts for just one function alone for the rest of my life, I'd choose breastfeeding instead of sex, but I see no reason why they can't co exist happily.

[mammal_mama]

Originally Posted by treeoflife3

If for some absurd reason I could only use my breasts for just one function alone for the rest of my life, I'd choose breastfeeding instead of sex, but I see no reason why they can't co exist happily.

I agree that breastfeeding and sex should be able to co exist happily!

As I've said before, I think the reason some people are working so hard to "de-sexualize" women's breasts is that they think this is the only way it will ever become acceptable to breastfeed openly in public.

Lilyka makes an excellent point that every part of a woman's body is beautiful and sexy. That's wonderful! I can be beautiful, sexy, AND lift my top and nurse my child whenever she wants to nurse. Just as I can bare my sexy lips and eyelashes out in public.

It's not the "breasts are sexual" connotation, but, rather, the "sex=shame" connotation, that is hurting breastfeeding.

[Smokering]

All our functional parts are super hot and all our parts are functional some how.

I'm not sure I'd go that far... although my spleen is certainly perky and fetching as spleens go.

With regards to breasts... I don't think there's anything wrong with finding them sexy, but I do think we need to be aware that our cultural definitions of "sexy" aren't untainted by culture. I often hear people say things like "Well, I just don't FIND Asian women attractive, it isn't my fault" or "I don't think fat people should be discriminated against, but I can't help it if I find skinny women prettier". The implication is that a person can't help his own perception of beauty - that it's somehow above critique.

But that simply isn't the case. Throughout different periods of history people have - genuinely and spontaneously - found all sorts of physical attributes and fashions attractive, when we would see them as ugly or awkward today. High foreheads, receding chins, sloping shoulders, tapered fingers, flat chests, round tummies, and so on and so forth. Five years ago our eyes had (mostly!) adjusted so that low-waisted jeans and skirts looked normal and high-waisted skirts looked awkward and gawky. Now high waists are coming back into fashion, and lo and behold - now when I see a high-waisted skirt, it doesn't look "wrong" any more. Neither fashion is objectively more "right"; our eyes just change, as eyes changed from wartime clothes to the New Look several decades ago. Eighties hair was genuinely considered attractive in the eighties; now it ain't. It's not like we're right and the eighties were wrong, it's just that our perceptions of beauty are defined by culture.

And our culture is pretty racist, sexist and so on. So the Western guy who doesn't like Asian women - be that a genuine, non-malicious preference - should perhaps consider that if he'd been surrounded by Asian women as the majority all his life, seen them displayed on billboards in equal numbers to white women, etc, his genuine preference might well be different. You know what I mean?

Anyhoo, I think the same goes for breasts. It's not wrong to appreciate breasts, just as cultures which don't find them sexy (or periods of history, fairly recently, in which they were deliberately flattered) aren't wrong. But appreciating them is culturally determined. And if that appreciation comes largely from the depiction of large, perky, non-lactating, pre-pregnancy, mostly white breasts on airbrushed thin white women, then it's understandable that that appreciation leads to thinking that doesn't support breastfeeding. You can see why people make awful comments like "I don't want my wife to ruin her breasts by breastfeeding", or "I don't mind hot women breastfeeding, but I don't want to see it if she's fat", or why they view them as hyper-sexual and therefore shameful. Does that make sense? I'm not saying men (or women) should train themselves not to like breasts, counter to their culture; but I think we should be aware that our gut reaction to breasts, be it attraction or disgust, isn't above critique or "pure" or objective.

[treeoflife3]

Originally Posted by mammal_mama

I agree that breastfeeding and sex should be able to co exist happily!

As I've said before, I think the reason some people are working so hard to "de-sexualize" women's breasts is that they think this is the only way it will ever become acceptable to breastfeed openly in public.

Lilyka makes an excellent point that every part of a woman's body is beautiful and sexy. That's wonderful! I can be beautiful, sexy, AND lift my top and nurse my child whenever she wants to nurse. Just as I can bare my sexy lips and eyelashes out in public.

It's not the "breasts are sexual" connotation, but, rather, the "sex=shame" connotation, that is hurting breastfeeding.

it is definitely the sex=shame thing that is hurting the cause. More specifically, WOMEN and sex=shame.

[MusicianDad]

Breasts can be sexual, just like any other part of the body. That doesn't negate the fact that their primary purpose is to feed offspring. In fact, it is likely because of the primary purpose that many cultures do find breasts attractive. Just like those cultures where breasts are not viewed as sexual tend to have their own body part that has a primary purpose related to bearing young that they find attractive, like hips...

That being said. I don't find breasts sexually attractive at all... But that's just me.

What is sexual varies, not only between cultures but between people. I know straight guys who couldn't care less about what a woman has under her shirt. They'd rather go for the woman with long hair, or smooth legs, or even a big butt and larger figure.

Originally Posted by Purple Sage

That really made me laugh! I have a big butt, but it surely isn't there to counteract my tiny boobs.

The bigger the butt, the softer the seat...