Breasts are NOT sex organs - Page 2

[Sustainer]

The penis IS a sex organ, a genital. It is also for urination, so it is multi-functional.

The breast is no more sexual than any other part of the body. It does not have a secondary purpose. It is not multi-functional.

Using a breast in sex play is no different from using a foot or a neck. If you want to say that your whole body is "sexual," that's fine, but that doesn't mean the human body is composed entirely of genitalia.




ETA: This whole site is great: http://www.007b.com/

[MamaAllNatural]

SBF, thanks for the awesome links!

[arthead]

hmm... I follow what each of you so far have said, seems like we have various interpretaions of why the breast exists & how we use it - which is alright.

When I was being sexually abused, the man definitely used my breasts for his sexual pleasure. But then there are people who will for sure say to me "maybe he did, but rape/abuse is only about power, not sex" Let me just say that it sure as heck felt like he was getting off in a sexual manner & using my body for HIS sexual aggressions, not just a power trip.

Seems like a topic to agree to disagree on? Maybe in Africa (someone pointed out Africa specifically) breasts are not sexual, but the society in which I live, breasts are definitely sexual. I'd be arresetd if I bare my breasts even though I'd love nothing more then to see them as non-sexual, beautiful food-makers. Sad but true!

[Sustainer]

Breasts can definitely be used in a sexual way. My only point has been that *any* body part can be used in a sexual way. If a man pinned a woman down and sucked on her neck, that would also be sexual abuse.

My intent has definitely not been to minimize or trivialize what victims of sexual abuse have been through, even when the only part of the body fondled was the breasts.

[Persephone]

Mallory: That quote said it so much better than I ever could.

As for reproductive system, I think if you're looking at it from a holistic point of view, then you have to consider the effects of sex and reproduction on a woman's entire body. Hormones are a HUGE player in that, and one really effective way of triggering hormones is nipple stimulation. Are breasts directly involved in reproduction? No. That's why they aren't found in most textbooks (and most textbooks aren't holistic minded either). But you can't deny that breasts play a huge role in the reproductive cycle. And to me, that makes them sexual.

[Sustainer]

If by "a huge role in the reproductive cycle" you mean that we use them to feed the babies that we produce, I would not call that sexual. If you mean things like nipple stimulation to release hormones to initiate or enhance labor, I wouldn't call that a "huge" role -- after all, you could reproduce even if you didn't have breasts.

[Persephone]

Breasts are used in sex play (the typical "sexual" use), breasts are used to start/help labor along (by nipple stimulation), breasts are used to nurse and nourish babies, and breasts are used to stimulate the hormones that play a large role in bonding. I'd consider that a pretty large role. I consider ANY part of that cycle to be sexual. If you don't consider birth/nursing sexual, then no, I wouldn't see breasts as sexual. But I do see birth and nursing as sexual. NOT in a perverted way, but in the way that is described in the quote Mallory posted a page ago. I think what we need to do is define "sexual". What I'm talking about when I say "sexual", is, " of or pertaining to the cycle of reproduction."

[Aura_Kitten]

I consider ANY part of that cycle to be sexual. If you don't consider birth/nursing sexual, then no, I wouldn't see breasts as sexual. But I do see birth and nursing as sexual. NOT in a perverted way, but in the way that is described in the quote Mallory posted a page ago. I think what we need to do is define "sexual". What I'm talking about when I say "sexual", is, " of or pertaining to the cycle of reproduction."

[Sustainer]

Well, I think when this thread began, we were referring to "sexual" as "pertaining to the act of sexual intercourse," and we were defining "sex organ" as "genital."

In that sense, the only example you gave that would apply is that breasts are used in sex play. And I would respond that ALL body parts can be and are used in sex play.

Therefore, the breast is no more "sexual" ("pertaining to the act of having sex") than the ear.

[arthead]

I took the OP as saying that it's silly for someone to have sexual hangups when it comes to BF - b'c they are not one in the same.

Just my original thought. Funny how MANY different perspective one single post/question can hold, eh? I personally like that we have various views on such a universal issue.

[Sustainer]

I think the point was that we shouldn't feel uncomfortable breastfeeding in public the way we would (probably) feel uncomfortable having sex in public. There shouldn't be a cultural taboo against exposing the breast.

[Persephone]

Originally Posted by SBF

I think the point was that we shouldn't feel uncomfortable breastfeeding in public the way we would (probably) feel uncomfortable having sex in public. There shouldn't be a cultural taboo against exposing the breast.

I think we ALL agree on that. I think it's all in how they're presented. One can bare a breast in public and nurse a baby, and that's not sexual. ("pertaining to the act of sex") But one could do a striptease in public, exposing breasts, and that would be sexual, and inappropriate. The thing that bugs me is why do we consider say, someone performing a striptease in the middle of the mall inappropriate, but not say, Britney Spears at the Grammys? But that's a whole NOTHER can o' worms.

[Aura_Kitten]

I think when this thread began, we were referring to "sexual" as "pertaining to the act of sexual intercourse," and we were defining "sex organ" as "genital."

interesting that this difference was not noted earlier in the thread.

[Sustainer]

Well, the thread was originally started because the breast was compared to a penis on another thread, and someone suggested that displaying pictures of breasts might not be appropriate on MDC, since displaying pictures of penises is not considered appropriate.

Then, during the course of the thread, the definition of "sexual" seemed to broaden. When confusion arose, it was suggested that we need to define "sexual," so I tried to do so in what I felt was the spirit of the OP.

[Aura_Kitten]

Well, the thread was originally started because the breast was compared to a penis on another thread, and someone suggested that displaying pictures of breasts might not be appropriate on MDC, since displaying pictures of penises is not considered appropriate.

:LOL

sorry but first, that strikes me as really funny. what thread was it?

but also... how in the world were any of us supposed to know the context of the original post? if this was brought up from another thread, it should have been hinted at or explained ealier in this thread, not left to ambiguity.

[rareimer]

Originally Posted by Persephone

And saying that breasts are sexual doesn’t diminish their intended purpose. It’s when breasts are seen as nothing BUT sex objects that they become cheapened, and THAT is what upsets me.

EXACTLY!

what REALLY bothers me as well is when lactating is compared to urination or defecation...but that is a whole different thread.

[jeca]

they are multi functional

[homemademomma]

breasts attract men

did you ever notice how humans are the ONLY mammals that have full, obvious breasts when they are not lactating? i always thought that our breasts evolved to look the way they do to attract men. however, their main purpose is obviously to feed babies.

don't misunderstand- i am a hardcore NIPer, and not a bit discreet. so what if my (saggy, lopsided )breasts are attractive to some guy- is that supposed to take precedence over my baby's desire/need to nurse?!

[Sustainer]

Originally Posted by klothos

what thread was it?

http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=144618

Originally Posted by klothos

but also... how in the world were any of us supposed to know the context of the original post? if this was brought up from another thread, it should have been hinted at or explained ealier in this thread, not left to ambiguity.

I'm terribly sorry. We thought the topic could stand on its own. I thought we were pretty clear in our first few posts. I guess I was wrong. I was asked for an explanation, and I gave it. I don't know what else I can do. I apologize again.

[umbrella]

Let me just say that it sure as heck felt like he was getting off in a sexual manner & using my body for HIS sexual aggressions, not just a power trip.

This is a very sensitive topic, so I want to tread lightly here.

Rapists get off in a sexual manner in all rapes. Just because sexuality is involved doesn't mean control and power were not the driving factors. And when people are talking about sexual abuse and rape being more about power, it's to counter the prior notion that rapists rape because "men need sex." It was previously thought that if a woman got a man aroused, he had every right to rape her, because men can't just get aroused like that and not be ful-fulled; they need sex. When in fact, that is not true. Many many rapists do not need to rape in order to have sexual release. Many rapists have steady girlfriends, or wives when they rape other women. It's not because they're not getting enough sex. They're raping for other reasons, and using sexuality along the way.

Also, there are many people with foot fetishes. There are strange men who masterbate into womens shoes (and some who want the women to walk in that shoe afterwards). Again, that doesn't make the foot a sex organ.