It's not often I disagree with Kathy D. But Kathy, I hae me doots about
your latest piece in its stark absolutist form. So here goes for an
interesting thread???
>THERE IS NOTHING INTRINSICALLY/BIOLOGICALLY SEXUAL ABOUT BREASTS!!!! We
>*learn* to associate sexual feelings and pleasure with manual and oral
>manipulation of our breasts -- it is not biological, it is cultural.
Maybe so, Kathy. But if it is ALL cultural, what I want to know is why my
nipples have ALWAYS responded to light touch in a much more interesting way
than my knees, a way noticeably connected with lower abdomen, from innocent
puberty onwards (and I was not brought up in a household or world full of
erogenised (?) breasts, I assure you: this was the dark ages of the 1950s
in Oz. Now it could just be the zillions of nerve endings or something
similarly biological; and maybe some of us have more or less such nerve
endings than others. Roger Short showed in a neat little experiment that
the sensitivity of the breast to light touch increased dramatically over
the last weeks of pregnancy and first few days of lactation: he didn't
check knees to see if the exquisite sensitivity of the nipple was repeated
there, but as I say, I hae me doots. And that sensitivity increased in a
gradient from nipple to outer breast. It peaked at day three, by the way:
he didn't go on past about day 5, alas.
>The possibility of a woman experiencing sexual pleasure from
breastfeeding is about the same as the possibility of a woman experiencing
sexual pleasure from a breast exam for cancerous lumps at the gynecologist,
or the possibility of a woman experiencing sexual pleasure from some
stranger groping her on the subway.
Garn! Now this I DON'T believe. A woman in fear and panic is as likely to
experience sexual pleasure as a relaxed woman snuggled up with a warm loved
body? Now Kathy, either you know something about breast exams and groping
that I don't, or this is just a wee bit over the top.
>Sexual pleasure is intensely context-dependent.
Fine, I agree. And the physical context can be the same but the internal
mental context very different: like the same partner can try endlessly to
arouse us but if we're really annoyed with him it may not work...or it may.
Or like breastfeeding while sex-deprived (a cultural concept that) cos'
partner has been away for a week, can have (yes yes I confess!!) different
consequences for arousal than breastfeeding after the roll in the hay that
followed his return. And this experience can surprise you: you are not
thinking "gee, I gotta get some sex", but your body knows it's been a while
(bodies have their own rhythms) and starts responding, and you feel a
strong sense of arousal building...Or maybe hormone levels are different: I
have no ideda what causes it, but I know it can happen without intent. It's
really very pleasant if you don't think pleasure is bad and nasty stuff.
Enjoy it but don't look for it is my motto.
>If a woman says she is experiencing sexual feelings while nursing her
>child, it is because she *does* have an overactive imagination, or has
>learned, in a Pavlovian "dog-bell-food-saliva" style to associate those
>pleasurable feelings with a sexual context.
Sorry, but I do know the difference between sensual and sexual.I don't
think it's that simple. Bodies have their own logic. Mostly it's a) sensual
but sometimes it's b) sexual. And if you haven't been looking for that,
consciously using the baby and hoping for that (ugh, as if a balanced adult
breastfeeding mother would) THERE'S NO PROBLEM.
>Tell her to consciously think about the context, to look at the baby, and
>to realize that not all pleasurable feelings are sexual.
Why, for goodness sake? Why should a mother lying down on a bed with her
baby now look at the baby instead of drifting into a pleasant state of
arousal? Why are women supposed to enjoy sex everywhere and every time a
man is involved but never by themselves? Would it be so dreadful if an
aroused mother put a-now satiated sleeping baby to one side and got on with
a bit of light relief? Think of all the positive benefits of that smooth
muscle relaxation that follows orgasm. Think of the nice relaxing snooze
she might drift off into, and the bumper milk supply she might have after
waking refreshed beside her bub even an hour later. Think of how frustrated
physically she might sometimes (won't always) feel if she consciously
denies herself sexual relief. But if auto-eroticism is outside the mother's
cultural mores, (and that IS culturally conditioned) think of the benefits
to their relationship if breastfeeding puts her in the mood for a bit of
slap and tickle when baby's father comes in the door....So long as she
doesn't say to him that teh baby has got her going better than his usual
foreplay, or something equally daft. As we all know, there are things
better left unsaid because of the western cultural context of male sexual
insecurity. I have found men to be very curious about how it feels to
breastfeed, and I've told them it feels great, and sometimes arousing, but
very different from heterosexual sex play because sex is so much a
volitional act and so much depends on intent.
I think what's important in all real adult human sex is that we do not
deliberately use another person as a sex object; that we relate
appropriately as whole physical and intellectual beings. Of course it is
abhorrent to think of a mother deliberately using a baby for sexual
gratification, even if the baby is unaware of this, contributing all
unknowing. What is nasty about this is that the baby is not a person but an
object. After all, when a baby is breastfeeding he/she is not doing
anything other than he/she would do anyway to stay alive, and what's more
is enjoying him/herself and even perhaps experiencing extreme sensual
pleasure. But what the mother feels and how she interprets those feelings
is also a matter of mindset and intention and all those things that make us
human and not only animal. On that I agree with Kathy that context is
imprtant and mostly determining. But IF it happens naturally that we become
sexually aroused without intention, our bodies on automatic pilot: it's
just a bonus brought about by our particular biology, in my view. Some of
us like heterosex a lot more/less than others and are easier/harder to
arouse in that context: so what? Sex is about lots more things then
orgasms, though western culture would not have us believe it so.
It's also true that orgasm from breastfeeding alone is likely to be
uncommon. But it does occur. And we need to say it's OK. What a woman
experiences is not as important as what she thinks and does about her
experiences. The mother who mothers inappropriately, looking to her baby
for emotional gratification, is as bad a mother as the mother who
experiences sexual arousal and then hankers after that in breastfeeding.
Both are self-centred, not child-centred. The baby will be utterly ignorant
of what's going on in mother's head, heart and mind, but will eventually
suffer from the mother's self-centredness. But just at this stage, babies
don't know or care what mother is experiencing. Just so long as the breast
comes by regularly (and remember orgasm means oxytocin release, and I can
tell you that another let-down is certainly triggered by orgasm, to baby's
delight.) I think where this issue becomes very problematic and moves into
incest and abuse (what is lurking unsaid in everyone's mind) is if a
self-centred mother continues to breastfeed for years for the wrong
reasons: a baby cannot be sexualised but a child can.
Pam joined in with:
>I agree that too much is said about breastfeeding being sexual to the point
of orgasm. I would like to see ONE person who has had this experience..
Pam, there are a few in my experience. But they may not come out of the
closet on Lactnet! This is private stuff.
>And I don't think books, etc. should even mention anything about it. It
just might scare women enough to not even consider breastfeeding.
Now there I strongly disagree. I think books should mention it just so
mothers know that there is a wide range of normal physiology and this is
one end of a spectrum and nothing to be worried about if it happens. Or if
it doesn't. Don't mention it and anxiety, guilt, fear of being monstrous
are the result for those to whom it does happen. And they give up because
they're enjoying breastfeeding "too much". I've heard so many grateful
women say thanks for this section in Breastfeeding Matters. It is really
SAD to think women are afraid to experience their own bodies' rhythms if a
baby is involved. What next? Co-sleeping may lead to pleasurable
experience: do we worry that pleasure may tip over into overtly sexual
activity?
>This country is just too screwed up about BREASTS!!
I couldn't agree more. It is a measure of HOW screwed up that we are having
this discussion. Would men be bothered and think it a bad thing if some
worthwhile activity also had sensual and sexual overtones? It sure as heck
wouldn't be a reason to avoid the activity, now would it? Just imagine if
men breastfed and there was a chance of erotic arousal: I can see some
boasting to their friends about just how good it all was, how many orgasms
their baby supplied, sharing ways of maximising the experience.... Do we
think the baby knows what's going on or will be affected in some way?
> If a woman gets that excited breastfeeding, she must not be focusing on
>her baby....IMHO.
Possibly. But bad mother me, I confess that I didn't always focus on my
baby during breastfeeding. I read a lot of books, talked to zillions of
friends, got housework done, played with toddlers, dozed, and....
occasionally experienced sexual arousal. Does that make me an unfit mother,
or just one who fitted breastfeeding into a woman's life? Do I detect a
commandment that we should all focus on our baby at breast all the time? We
sure don't in real life.
>This issue gets to me because I sense sometimes that people think I'm just
slightly perverted to be so interested in breastfeeding, like it is a sexual
thing. Some people need to get a life.
Yay Pam, they do. They should not be allowed to dictate terms to us though.
Breastfeeding is physical; the physical can be sexual; the sexual is
God-given just as the non-sexual is. This is a weird Jansenistic hangover
which reveals their unhealthy obsession with breasts, not your sane and
sensible concern. THEY ARE THE PROBLEM, NOT YOU.
>Do any others of you get weird looks or made to feel like a pervert when
>you tell them what you do?
No one can make anyone feel like anything. If you feel uncomfortable it is
something in you that is reacting to their discomfort. Work on that. Be
comfortable, bold and unashamed and these weirdos fade away. Humour is the
best medicine. And set them straight on the facts. I've had some
interesting discussion with my children as they have grown up about what it
feels like to breastfeed; they have some strong memories of what it felt
like for them, and it was all pretty positive stuff. They have asked about
the sexual versus lactational use of breasts, and I've told them that both
uses are very pleasurable (though some women, like many men, have breasts
that aren't erogenous zones). But that sex is about what's in your head as
much as what's happening to your body, and so the two activities are
different even when the physical sensation is the same. They don't seem to
have a problem with it. Maybe because I don't. But then I don't live in a
country where a woman who enquires about the normal sensual feelings of
breastfeeding can have her baby taken away from her!!! Hollywood has a lot
to answer for...
Now that should stir the possum, dear friends. Do you agree? Take sides for
the Culture Team, or Biology plus Culture Team.. What do you all think
about this sex and breastfeeding caper? Kathy, a reply? Ros, where are you
now? Your presentation on this is wonderful... Maureen Minchin
|
