Arun Nair  writes:

>I have been following with great interest the discussion on other uses
>of human breasts. I have no doubt in my mind that breasts have dual
>function. While primary use still remains the function of lactation
>secondarily its role is as a secondary sexual organ.

Dr. Nair, there really isn't any scientific evidence to support the above
claim.  My chapter "Beauty and the Breast" explores this issue in great
detail.  Among other mammalian species (all God's creatures who have mammary
glands), the mammary glands play NO ROLE in sexual attraction or sexual
behavior.  Among the VAST MAJORITY of human cultures, the mammary glands
play NO ROLE in sexual attraction or sexual behavior.  In a tiny minority of
human cultures, the breasts have been CULTURALLY defined as sexual and
erotic, and the males in those cultures have learned to become sexually
aroused by female breasts.  In some cultures men prefer big breasts, in
others small, in some "pert" and in others "droopy."  In other cultures,
other parts of the body have been CULTURALLY defined as sexual and erotic,
such as female thighs in Mali, female hair in much of the Middle East (one
of the reasons for covering the hair with the veil), tiny deformed feet in
China, lip plugs in East Africa, facial tattos and nose plus in northeast
India, and on and on.  Likewise, in a tiny minority of human cultures, the
breasts have been CULTURALLY defined as playing a role in sexual behavior,
and the males fondle and caress the breasts before and during sexual
intercourse (and sometimes the women like this and sometimes they are
indifferent and sometimes they don't like it at all, but must put up with
it).  Again, this is *learned* cultural behavior, not some sort of "human
nature."  This is amply documented in my research.  Humans can apparently
learn to view many different physical features as sexually attractive, and
they can apparently learn to get sexual pleasure from many different
activities.


If it were'nt so,
>it would'nt develop to the size and shape that it attains by the end of
>puberty and when pregnancy sets in, it develops further and later when
>the function of lactation is over it gets back to prepregnancy state,
>mind you it does'nt revert to prepubertal state.

The breasts develop the way that they do so that they are able tofunction to
feed babies, and conserve energy by involuting when there is no baby to feed.

 It is a fact of life that men get
>titillated by the sight and feel of the organ and some women use it with
>great relish to attract men.

IN SOME CULTURES.  Unfortunately, the US is one of the most extreme, and the
influence of the US around the world is staggering.  In most cultures, men
are NOT "titillated by the sight and feel of the organ."


 In the sexual act both partners get
>stimulated by the organ. I believe this holds good across the various
>cultural groups all over the world.

You are mistaken.  In most cultures, the breasts play absolutely no role in
"the sexual act."  When I talked with my Malian (West African) informants
about US sexual behavior, they were simultaneously amused and appalled at my
descriptions of adult men sucking on women's breasts.  "You mean the men
PRETEND THEY ARE LITTLE CHILDREN!!!!" they howled with incredulity and
disbelief.  Deriving sexual pleasure from fondling of the breasts is
CULTURALLY LEARNED.  It is similar to the differing reactions of people of
two cultures when presented with a meal that one views as a delicacy and the
other abhors.  Imagine a nice beef uicy steak presented to a Texan and a
Hindu.  One is ready to eat, the other ready to gag.  Or imagine a nice
plate of open-pit-fire-roasted witchetty grubs -- big fat white greasy
"maggots".  The Australian Aborigine is ready to eat, the typical US citizen
is disgusted.  Or just consider the case of an American (not me) who ate
something they thought tasted delicious, and then had to go vomit when they
discovered it was rat stew.  Rat stew didn't bother me a bit, but I never
could bring myself to eat termites, even though my daughter ate them with
relish.

The fact that physiological reactions can be culturally conditioned seemed
to be a difficult one for people to understand, but there are many examples.

>Just look at it from the biological point of view !

From a biological point of view, breasts are for feeding babies, just as
feet are for walking.

Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Anthropology and Nutrition
Texas A&M University