LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"katherine a. dettwyler" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 Feb 1996 12:24:28 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (55 lines)
>Subject: Sex and Breasts
>
>To Kathy D.,
>
>     I was reading old letters and had one comment on your letters on this
>topic.  You have stated that breasts are not biologically "programmed" to
>be sexual because there are some societies in which they have no sexual
>component.  Scientifically, there could be several explanations, for
>example:
>
>1)  Breasts biologically have no sexual value; in some societies, people
>learn to consider breasts sexual.  (Nurture)
>
>2)  Breasts biologically are sexual (as well as for feeding babies).  Some
>societies learn to consider breasts non-sexual.  (Nature)


Number two is highly unlikely (though not impossible, of course).  Highly
unlikely given that in no other mammalian species do the mammary glands play
any role whatsoever in sexual behavior.  That would make humans totally
unique, and humans are not totally unique from other animals in any way
(even apes have tool use, hunting, "culture", elaborate communication
systems, etc., and no, I don't want to get in another debate about will and
morality, so I'll concede that one to those who insist).  Also, given that
only a few societies view breasts as sexual, it would mean that the vast
majority of cultures have independently come up with ways to suppress this
natural instinct.  Not likely.  When something is found in only a few
societies, you assume that the "norm" is the absence.

>
>3)  Breasts are potentially sexual.  Some input from society is needed to
>realize this potential.  This is the case in language--babies are
>biologically  programmed to learn language, but in order to do so, they
>must hear one or more languages.

All body parts are potentially sexual, such as bound feet among the Chinese,
thighs among Malians, etc.  There is no evidence that the breasts are
inherently more sexual than feet or thighs or earlobes.

>4)  Breasts are physically different in different societies.  This may be
>as a result of exposure to tropical sunlight or other physical experience.

There is no evidence of this either.

I'll send you a copy of my chapter on this topic.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------
Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.                         email: [log in to unmask]
Anthropology Department                               phone: (409) 845-5256
Texas A&M University                                    fax: (409) 845-4070
College Station, TX  77843-4352

ATOM RSS1 RSS2