Breasts are NOT part of sexual physiology, any more than Chinese bound feet are, or thighs in Mali, or any other culturally-defined body part. Culture is extremely powerful. Cultural beliefs and practices can sexualize just about any part of the body -- people can learn to take sexual pleasure from having their toes sucked. This doesn't make toes a natural part of sexual physiology. It is not accurate to say that cultures where breasts are not sex objects are also cultures where females are circumcized. The vast majority of cultures in the world, as of the 1940s/1950s, did not view the breasts as sexually stimulating and did not involve the breasts in sexual behavior. In Ford and Beach's survey (1951), 13 out of 190 cultures viewed the breasts as sexually stimulating, and 13 out of 190 involved the breasts in sexual behavior, and there were only 3 cultures that did both (the two groups of 13 mostly did not overlap). Most cultures in the world do not circumcize their females. Female circumcision is about insuring who the father of the baby is, so that the father's resources are not put into raising children other than his own. There are many other cultural solutions to the problem of men not being sure who their offspring are -- such as double-standards for men and women, cults of the virgin wife, seclusion within the home, and matrilineality. Circumcision is only one of many cultural ways to insure male paternity, and it is not related to how the culture views the breasts. It is not legitimate to argue that in the vast majority of human cultures people have managed to repress the breasts' sexual function. If you look at the animal world, in no other species do the mammary glands play any role whatsoever in sexual attraction or sexual behavior. The bull does not get thrills from the cow's udder. The male dog pays no attention to the bitch's mammary glands. "Breasts as sex objects" is unknown in the non-human mammal world. "Breasts as sex objects" was unknown in the vast majority of human cultures as recently as the middle of the 20th century. The only logical conclusion is that breasts have no biological/physiological/natural sexual function. That breasts culturally can be made to be sexually stimulating is obvious -- see a few cultures in the last few centuries. But so can deformed bound feet (China), so can thighs, so can the nape of the neck, so can long hair, etc. etc. etc. etc. Careful cross-cultural research has shown that the only cross-cultural universal in sexual attractiveness is a big difference in the size of the waist versus the hips (a big difference, with the waist being smaller, is sexy to men everywhere). That breasts culturally can be made into a source of sexual pleasure for both men and women is obvious -- see a few cultures in the last few centuries. But so can just about any other body part. There is nothing specific to the breasts that leads to sexual arousal -- they do not have high concentrations of nerves. This is all LEARNED and CULTURAL. While I think the work that Fiona is doing is interesting and provocative, there can never be any excuse for deliberately misrepresenting the data, nor for making up elaborate and unrealistic scenarios (cultures repressing female sexual enjoyment from their breasts) just to make a point. Let me attempt to make an illustrative analogy: Imagine a devout Hindu researcher who doesn't believe people should eat meat. She wants to convince people to not eat meat by arguing that humans are naturally vegetarian. Even though primates in general are omnivores (eating both plants and meat) and even though the vast majority of human cultures are omnivores and eat meat, she -- the Hindu researcher -- insists that humans are not designed to eat meat, and that in those cultures where people do eat meat, it is because cultural beliefs have over-ridden the natural urge to be vegetarian. Silly, isn't it? This makes as much sense as arguing that even though no other mammals use the mammary glands in sexual behavior, and even though most human cultures don't either, that it is somehow natural for humans to get sexual pleasure from their breasts, and that in those cultures that don't, they have repressed it culturally. It makes no sense. There is not one shred of evidence for it. So, no matter how much it might bolster some interesting line of reasoning/argument a person is trying to make -- it is not legitimate. 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