> ------------------------------
>
> The question is "Is it a *biological function* of the breast to be sexual,
> or a cultural overlay found only in a few cultures?"

Although I enjoyed reading your post on this topic, I'm not entirely convinced that
the appearance of breasts has no biological function.  Even in cultures where there
is no breast touching during sex, breasts are a visible symbol of fecundity.
Pre-puberty and post-menopause, breasts are shaped differently than in females
within their fertile years.  Human males, being highly attuned to visual cues,
would be able to identify likely candidates for carrying on the species by visible
evidence of sexual maturity.  Yes, there certainly is an element of cultural
overlay!  I like to think of it as "breasts" versus "breasts in a red push-up
bra."  Simple "breasts" are fulfilling their most basic biological/sexual status,
whereas "breasts in a red push-up bra" are physically encased in their cultural
overlay, having downplayed or even eradicated the biological function in favor of
the erotic.

I would submit that many (not all) cultural overlays regarding sexual
attractiveness are based (however loosely) on a foundation of what is biologically
attractive.  Ideals of beauty incorporate many of the visual cues for fertility.  I
would also submit that because human females lack obvious external cues for
ovulation, these visual cues are in fact important to our survival.

> I understand that people don't want to give up their sexual pleasure.  But
> at what price do we define our breasts this way?  And is that price worth it?

Honestly, I would be hard-pressed to be convinced that including sexuality within a
holistic understanding of the breast would be detrimental. I think the price to be
paid occurs when we attempt to suppress one element of our humanity or sexuality in
goal-oriented favor of another.  In the end, it usually works against us.

And in the interests of increasing breastfeeding rates and personal comfort with
public breastfeeding, I think that it is much more reasonable to expect that we
could expand women's concepts of their breasts much easier than we can shift
entirely to a new understanding, for all the reasons that you shared regarding what
is and is not food.  You might get me to eat termites and enjoy them, but I won't
entirely replace steak in favor of termites.  So it is with getting people to
expand their view of the many roles of breasts, rather than change to an entirely
new paradigm.

And yes, I agree -- there is a terrible price to be paid when "breasts in a red
push-up bra" becomes the dominant, even exclusive, understanding of breasts, which
is where we stand today in the US.  It is indeed harmful to nursing mothers who are
chastised or encouraged toward the restroom. It is harmful for women who are
working to understand the full scope of their sexuality outside of the cultural
mandates of youth and perfection and large breasts; harmful for every woman who has
undergone the knife to enlarge or reshape her breasts.  Harmful for
prematurely-weaned or never-nursed babies.  In these cases, the cultural overlay is
not only harmful, for some it is even fatal.

Again, thanks for the perspectives offered in your post.

Debbie McCallister
Louisville, Kentucky

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html