On Thu, 29 Feb 1996 06:31:12 -0600, Kathy D. wrote:
>Gena Kus  writes:
>
>>I always enjoy Kathy Dettwyler's knowledgeable posts.
>>    Regarding sex and breasts--while I agree with much of your post on this
>>subject (27 Feb), where does breast stimulation causing uterine contractions
>>and the like come in?  This can't be a learned behavior.  And they are part
>>of the reproductive system which by its very nature is sexual...
>
>Breast stimulation causes uterine contracts when the uterus has lots of
>oxytocin receptors -- only around the time of delivery, as I understand it.
>So early nursing by the baby helps a LOT to expel the placenta and keep the
>uterus contracted after delivery to reduce blood flow.  Presumably that is
>the purpose of the breastfeeding--oxytocin--uterine contractions axis.  IF
>oxytocin causes uterine contractions later on, they are not felt by most
>women.  And the uterine contractions immediately following delivery are not
>pleasurable to anyone I know.  Niles Newton's work showed that oxytocin was
>released upon orgasm, but NOT that oxytocin was *responsible* in any way for
>the pleasurable feelings of orgasm.  I suspect that if someone did research
>on orgasm in women given oxytocin-blockers, they would not notice any
>difference (that is to say, I don't think the oxytocin is what causes the
>pleasure).

I hate to extend what is probably an off-topic chain, but here I go again .
. .  I think
the difference is in the definition of "sexual".  Does it mean "anything
related to
reproduction" or does it mean "related to interpersonal genital contact"?  Under
the first definition, reproduction might be deemed to include neonate care;
under
the second I can't think of a way to relate them.

The issue of what is beautiful is different from the issue of what is
sexual.  Both
reproduction and nurturing the neonate are beautiful, probably because they are
central to the survival of our species.  Breasts are beautiful precisely because
they can be used for nourishing our young.  When I see a woman breastfeeding,
I feel pleased that she is doing the best thing possible for her baby, but I
don't
feel sexually "turned on" by it, any more than I do when I listen to a Beethoven
symphony.  When my wife kisses my ear, however, I do feel "turned on", because
I have learned to connect this with sex.  (And yes, Kathy, I would be
irritated by it,
too, if she did it under circumstances where sex was impossible!  To me, it
would
be making a promise impossible to keep.)

My MD shrink FIL disagrees with me on this issue.  He says that all skin is
erogenous to some degree, and this is most intense wherever there is a juncture
between mucous membranes and ordinary skin.  I can't see it!  The nostril is
such
a juncture, and is not at all erogenous.  I guess the real answer is that
beauty (and
sex) is in the eye of the beholder (or, more precisely, in the mind of the
beholder).

Jonathan