This is some of the information I found on the female human breast:
“The term breast, also known by the Latin mamma in anatomy, refers to the upper ventral region of an animal's torso, particularly that of mammals, including human beings. In addition, the breasts are parts of a female mammal's body which contain the organs that secrete milk used to feed infants.
The function of the mammary glands in female breasts is to nurture the young by producing milk, which is secreted by the nipples during lactation. However, zoologists point out that no female mammal other than the human has breasts of comparable size when not lactating and that humans are the only primate that have permanently swollen breasts. This suggests that the external form of the breasts is connected to factors other than lactation alone.
The mammary glands that secrete the milk from the breasts actually make up a relatively small fraction of the overall breast tissue. It is commonly assumed by biologists that the real evolutionary purpose of women having breasts is to attract the male of the species; that, in other words, breasts are sexually dimorphic, or secondary sex characteristics. One theory is based around the fact that, unlike nearly all other primates, human females do not display clear, physical signs of ovulation.
This could have plausibly resulted in human males evolving to respond to more subtle signs of ovulation. During ovulation, the increased estrogen present in the female body results in a slight swelling of the breasts, which then males could have evolved to find attractive. In response, there would be evolutionary pressures that would favor females with more swollen breasts who would, in a manner of speaking, appear to males to be the most likely to be ovulating.
Some zoologists (notably Desmond Morris) believe that the shape of female breasts evolved as a frontal counterpart to that of the buttocks, the reason being that whilst other primates mate in the typical doggy-style position, humans are more likely to successfully copulate mating face on. A secondary sexual characteristic on a woman's chest would have encouraged this in more primitive incarnations of the human race, and a face on encounter would have helped found a relationship between partners beyond merely a sexual one.”
I followed the links on Bombadee’s post this morning (could you have any more links, by the way?) and one comment, found on another site, stuck with me:
“And the sexualization of the twin sites that sustain life sickens me.”
Sickens her? Seriously? My question, breastfeeding aside, is this: aren’t our breasts a part of our sexual selves? Sometimes I wonder when I read such comments if the author considers her breasts as sexually significant as her elbow (no elbow fetish comments, please). Am I reading all of these sites wrong, misunderstanding my fellow women? By no means do I look at myself or my breasts as sexual objects for the sole purpose of male arousal. I’m more selfish than that. Helen Reddy spoke for all of us when she sang “I am woman watch me grow/See me standing toe to toe”. Toe to toe; equal. What I don’t understand is why breastfeeding or feminism is sometimes paid for by the total de-sexualization of my breasts. It shouldn’t be wrong for me to say that my breasts are an erogenous zone, they play a significant role in my and my partners sex life.
Rabbi Schmuley’s comments and advice were ignorant. His comparison of breastfeeding your child to adultery was simply assinine. Calling a breast a “scintillating piece of flesh” didn’t piss me off as much as it made me laugh. But when it comes down to it, this is one of those times that I want to have it all. I want mutual love and respect, I want equality, I want the choice of whether or not to breastfeed, I want to be an intelligent and able and strong and compassionate and respected and loving and sexual being.
I especially want my breasts to look good in the new tops and dresses I bought for my trip to Vegas (in 15 days). I’m not going to, and should have to, apologize for that. It shouldn’t make me any less of a mother or feminist or any more of a woman. Truth be told, it just makes me vain.
12 comments:
What ticked me off was Schmuley's inability to talk about equality and respect.
There is a fine fine balance that happens in your brain when you have both functioning and sexual breasts on your chest. Some people believe that the arousal one feels while breast feeding exists to ensure that human’s sustain the baby. Regardless it’s a normal thing. Most women have to find a reckoning in their own minds with this and when that doesn’t happen in a nurturing and accepting environment it could result in feelings of shame and disgust… the result? No body touches the breasts accept the baby. Instead of helping her understand and sort these feelings out in her head Rabbi Schmuley reinforced the taboo.
She can have her cake and eat it too as long as no one makes her feel guilty about it.
While I initially agree with Schmuley’s point - marriage first above all so that the children have a stable home, I don’t agree that a stable marriage requires breasts. What if she’d had a double mastectomy (like Twisty). What if they are 78 years old and the flesh is no longer scintillating? What if the live in Sub-Saharan Africa and the boobies hang out in the sun until they reach the waist.
I feel like he is missing the root of the problem and just addressing a symptom. The problem is that she and her husband no longer feel intimate enough to talk to each other about their problems much less sleep in the same room, NOT she won’t let him touch her knockers (that’s just a side effect).
The problem isn't that she won't let him touch the fun bits the problem is she doesn't WANT him to. Schmuley's dissmissal of that is what makes smoke pour out of my ears.
I actually didn't read his article, only the quotes you and Twisty had posted.
I'll go back and read it now...
My post wasn't so much about Schmuley as it was about my thoughts on breasts in general.
Okay - I just read the whole Schmuley article and I find him to have a strange point of view on many fronts. I had issue with this statement:
"I told the mother that in being so devoted to her son, she had committed the cardinal sin of marriage, which is to put someone else before her spouse, even if that someone is your child."
I suppose I've never thought of my family, as in my husband and children, in terms of putting one before another. They are my family; no one else comes before THEM.
This in particular made me laugh out loud:
"There are certain poses in which a husband should not see his wife."
All I could think of when I read it was, you could've fooled me on Friday night...
~wink wink~
LOL!
Now you see why I had to say something. I endorsed this guy - publicly! On my blog! AHHHH!
I'm gonna have to throw some male perspective into this. Come see me in a couple of days and I'll toss out my perspective.
Mr. Blahzeeblah I'd love to read what you think.
Male perspective on the female breast? The anticipation is titillating…
Would you please go get a talk show, already?
Thanks for your usual even-handed, middle America, non-obsesive viewpoint.
Talk show, eh?
I could do that.
Can I be your Ed McMahon/Gail? I'll sit on the couch next to you and laugh and nod and slap my knee.
Jenny - you're hired!
Nice post. Speaking of boobs and such, I read this book called WOMAN by Natalie Angier a few months ago...You might want to check it out. Some interesting trivia I got out of it...did you know men and women have mammary cells or mammary tissue (don't quote me on terms) all the way down the front of the torso? Because of this, people sometimes get mutations that cause them to grow a third (or more!) nipple along the way. And this tissue may also be why men have nipples.
Anyway, the book is great and most women I know who've read it don't know why they hadn't read it sooner. I enjoyed your blog!
Post a Comment