Someone writes:
>Our female equipment being compared to other mammals is irrelevant,
>I believe. We're the only species made to mate face to face. In the
>Bible's Song of Solomon it talks of his Love's (noun) breasts being
>intoxicating to him. They were meant to be erotic, but only for that
>one's special lover. The specialness of the nursing relationship is
>mentioned also. Isn't this the stuff of romantic writers throughout
>history?
>She says being totally involved with the frontal applies only to a few
>cultures. But anatomically that is how humans were designed to mate.
Ah, where to start?
Humans are not the only species to mate face-to-face. A number of the other
apes do, including orangutans and of course bonobos, and sometimes
chimpanzees. I didn't know that marine mammals mated front-to-front, so
that is cool to know.
You also need to know that HUMANS DO NOT ALWAYS HAVE SEX IN THE "MISSIONARY"
POSITION, face to face. Yes, I'm shouting. Why do you think it is called
the "missionary" position? Because that's how the missionaries (from
western cultures) usually had/have sex, with the woman lying on her back and
the man facing her on top. In many cultures where western missionaries came
to prosyletize the Christian religion, this was the first time the local
folks had ever seen or heard of anyone having sex in that position.
The most common, culturally accepted position for sexual intercourse around
the world is dorso-ventral -- with man and woman lying on their sides and
the man entering the woman from behind. It is anatomically easy for humans
to have sex in the missionary position, the side-lying back-to-front
position, "Doggie-style" with the woman on her hands and knees, and of
course many other positions. Many animals, such as elephants, horses, dogs,
etc. would have a very difficult time having sex in any position other than
"Doggie-style" because of the anatomical arrangment of their genitals.
Humans, apes, and marine mammals are able to have sex front-to-front, but at
least for the humans and some of the other apes, it is possible to have sex
in a variety of positions.
If you read "romantic writers" from many cultures, they do not necessarily
write about breasts. They write about whatever is erotic in their culture.
I highly recommend "The Lotus Lovers : The Complete History of the Curious
Erotic Custom of Footbinding in China" by Howard S. Levy. It includes
excerpts from classic Chinese 'romantic writers' waxing poetic about the
erotic and sensual pleasure men get from seeing, fondling, sucking on, and
holding the deformed (and often putrefying) tiny feet of their female
partners. It is a very odd experience to read this material, as for most
westerners it arouses feelings of repulsion and disgust -- but then you
realize that if it said "breasts" instead of "feet" it would sound like
something out of Playboy. West African writers write about thighs.
Japanese writers write about the nape of the neck. And so on, and so forth.
Greek and Biblical writers may very well write about breasts being erotic.
No is claiming that modern US is the ONLY culture today or ever to have
defined breasts as erotic. Remember the 13 out of 190? The point is that
yes, breasts can be culturally defined as erotic, and yes, women and men can
learn to get sexual pleasure out of breasts -- but so can other body parts.
There is nothing biologically intrinsic to breasts that makes them
candidates for this.
For those of you struggling with this -- whether you believe humans evolved
from common ancestors with the other apes, or whether you believe a
supernatural being created all life -- humans and the other great apes are
almost identical genetically (more than 98% genetic identity for humans and
chimpanzees and bonobos; chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than
chimpanzees are to gorillas), and share many behaviors in common.
Chimpanzees and bonobos have culture, as do some monkey species.
Chimpanzees communicate through piles of rocks left on trails to indicate to
others which way they've gone. They hug and kiss when they need
reassurance, etc. etc. etc. Regardless of how humans and the other great
apes got to be so similar -- whether by evolution from a common ancestor or
by creation by a supernatural being -- we ARE very similar to the other
animals.
Also, I have never really understood the reluctance of people to accept that
the sexualization of the breasts is cultural. Culture can be extremely
powerful. Certainly, to return to my Hindu example -- what your culture
teaches you about what is edible and what is not can affect you
physiologically. Most people raised in the US think that eating insects is
gross and disgusting. Same for eating horse and dogs. Yet people in France
eat horse meat (and surely they are 'civilized'??), and some Asian and
African cultures eat dogs. Insects are eaten in many different human
cultures from all continents. Heck, my father ate things like "calf fries"
(calf testicles) and cow's brains and kidneys.
When my Hindu friend and I were talking one evening, we could smell
bar-be-cued meat on a neighbor's grill. To me it smelled great, made me
hungry, made me salivate (that is to say, it affected me physiologically).
She responded to the same smell with disgust and nausea (it affected her
physiologically, but in the opposite way) and we had to go inside to get
away from the smell. Culture can affect you physiologically.
If culture can influence different people to salivate or be nauseous in
response to the same smell/thought of food, it can certainly cause you to
become sexually aroused as a result of different body parts -- breasts vs.
thighs.
Why are people so reluctant to accept the power of culture?
With respect to Desmond Morris' theories about breasts mimicking buttocks --
he is a zoologist, not an anthropologist. When he was writing (early 1970s)
he wasn't aware that most humans don't have face-to-face sex, that most
cultures don't view the breasts as erotic, etc. etc. etc. His theories do
not stand up to scrutiny.
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
***********************************************
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
|
