Newton and Newton (Niles and Michael) wrote lots of great stuff on this.
Okay, so we can be conditioned to perceive any body part as sexual, and
capable of giving sexual pleasure.  But does oxytocin have the same degree
of effect on toes as it does on breasts?  There is an undeniably close
association between breasts and other parts of our reproductive sexual
anatomy: skin and tissue type, enervation, sensitivity to oxytocin, and then
of course the obvious, that the result of heterosexual genital intercourse
is frequently a 'customer' for the breast, often after emerging from the
mother as the culmination of labor-- yet another oxytocin-dependent bodily
function.  Breasts have represented survival-- what more powerful symbol of
sexual attraction than these wonderful life-giving organs which secure the
offspring's well-being?  And losing a breast is emotionally very different
from losing a finger, despite the finger being in more frequent use and its
loss very noticeable in everyday living.

I guess what I want to say is that there doesn't have to be a conflict
between breasts being sexually appreciated and nutritionally useful.  It's
all in the attitudes of the partners.  I don't think we fully know what
there is to appreciate about breasts before we see them nourishing our
children.

Rachel Myr
Kristiansand, Norway

             ***********************************************
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