Norma Ritter writes:

>        Whether or not female breasts are "supposed" to be sexually
attractive to males and/or sources of sexual pleasure for women is a
fascinating subject. Given that their primary biological purpose is that of
producing milk, it seems to me that bodily functions which ensure the
continuation of the species would *need* to be pleasurable as an incentive!

Many people, including the wonderful Niles Newton, made this common mistake
about understanding how natural selection works.  Natural selection is the
process whereby any genetic trait that increases the number of surviving
offspring in the next generation is automatically better represented in the
next generation than traits that decrease the number of surviving offspring,
irrespective of whether it is pleasurable to the individuals involved or
not.    If an activity performed by the mother, which has a genetic base,
increases her number of surviving offspring (net reproductive success)
compared to a mother who doesn't have that gene variant and so doesn't
perform the activity, or doesn't do it as often, or as well, then the first
mother will have more children who survive, and there will therefore be more
copies of that variant form of the gene in the next generation.  Whether or
not it is pleasurable to the mother is not part of the equation.  If
breastfeeding were painful/strenuous for the mother, and so some mothers
gave up, the ones who persisted would still have greater reproductive
success, and so genes for breastfeeding, and persevering in the face of
pain, etc. would be passed on to the next generation.  Something does not
have to be pleasurable to have survival value.  If it was the case that
breastfeeding was pleasurable to some women and painful to others, it
*might* be the case that those who found it pleasurable continued and those
who found it painful gave up, and there would be selection for those who
found it pleasurable, and so continued, and their babies thrived; and there
would be selection against those who found it painful and gave up and so
their babies died.  But there is no evidence that this has ever happened --
if it were the case, then women all over the world would be raving about how
wonderful it feels to nurse a baby, and women are not doing so.  Women in
most of the world nurse their babies because that's how babies are fed, and
sometimes it hurts, and sometimes it is OK, and they don't really ever think
much about how it *feels* to them -- they just do it.  They do it with
abscesses and cracked/bleeding nipples, etc.  They know the alternative is
that their child will die, so it really isn't a choice for them not to.

Think about this for a few minutes and think about all the activities that
are vitally necessary for survival and reproduction and whether or not they
are "pleasurable" -- like breathing, and urinating and defecating.  Now, I'm
not going to deny that sometimes there's nothing like a good *dump* (sorry
for the crudeness), but really, the most basic survival activities are just
there.  And remember that sex for much of the world is not particularly
pleasurable (especially for the female half of the world, but for many of
the men as well).

Kathy D., again