Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well during ual encounters two other chemicals are released by the brain. So I do not think you can make a ual comparison based on the information you have provided.

Actually there are more. Which ones are you talking about? Which encounters do they exist within and which encounters do they not exist within? I would like to know the categorical difference you are implying.

I have focused on oxytocin because the scientific zexual finger is pointed directly at it. It's in luzt encounters, orgazm encounters, breastfeeding encounters, massage, skin hunger experienced by children and encounters, etc. It seems to touch on all of them.

As far as my personal research goes I haven't seen that chemicals creating a categorical difference that it seems you are implying, but when considering fMRI categorical discoveries began to become more obvious.

But, what about those chemicals? What am I missing that you have noticed?
 
Incest (n.): ual between persons too closely related to marry (as between a parent and a child).​

Release of oxytocin is clearly insufficient to amount to incest.

You might as well argue that because adrenalin is released when somebody kills in a ous frenzy that all activities involving a release of adrenalin (e.g. sky diving) are the same as .

Please excuse the spelling and ackward wording. I'm using a right wing college internet connection to post this. It filters out not only zexual terms but strangely other words.

An analogy is not going to knock it down, no matter how clever you think you are being.

Here is Washington States defintion of zexual contact:

(2) "Zexual contact" means any touching of the zexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying zexual desire of either party or a third party.

Yes, the breast can be considered zexual. And, yes oxytocin is released along with natural opiates. Not all women who breastfeed have a problematic negative experience such as the female poster here.

"Intimate parts" in the legal definition are not specified. When you don't specify things, you know what that means? They get to interpret things as they wish. This leaves the entire body open to be considered a zexual intimate part, based upon scientific finds of the chemicals that may be released due to touching.

Even satisfying "skin hunger" that children have will fit fine under their ambiguous phrasing:
(zexual contact) for the purpose of gratifying zexual desire of either party or a third party.

"skin hunger" is technically zexual desire because the chemicals being released are identical between two 18+ humans in physical affection and parent/child physical cuddling.
 
No matter what, you seem intent on thinking that what he wants to do is to pervert the laws, laugh :p. I remember reading an article wherein a mother admitted that she found that breastfeeding her child was arousing; she got censured for it, I can't remember in exactly what way though.



I find your choice of examples to be interesting. In any case, I personally think that wikipedia's definition of incest is more thorough:
Incest refers to any ual activity between closely related persons (often within the immediate family) that is illegal or socially taboo. The type of ual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons that constitutes a breach of law or social taboo vary with culture and jurisdiction. Some societies consider it to include only those who live in the same household, or who belong to the same clan or lineage; other societies consider it to include % relatives"; other societies further include those related by adoption or marriage.[1]​

I think Stryder is getting much closer to the point and the article I read hammers it home:
Is it wrong to be aroused during breastfeeding? Must a mother stop breastfeeding her child at, say, 2? I happen to have known a mother who kept on breastfeeding her child for much longer then that. The child in question definitely liked when he grew older, but then many guys like ; I'm not sure if his like had anything to do with his extra long feeding time.

Finally, sure, we can go for the idea that breastfeeding, or stimulation of the is somewhat different from ual ; but are we saying that it is therefore ok for mothers to let them suck on them, even if the have stopped producing milk or never did? All of these questions open up pandora's boxes when it comes to our society, which certainly has dogmatic traits in it and generally doesn't even like these questions to be raised; reminds me of a certain other subject in sciforums I'm involved in :p.

Judges do not use wikipedia as a legal guide.
 
As the statement says, it may provide evidence, but does not say it actually does provide anything .

It's enough evidence under their defintion to imply that any touching can be construed as zexual. Now, in order to avoid that from being taken advantage of by moral zealots (which is happening in many areas of law), the wording needs to change. They have to quite writing ambigous statements when it comes to zexual laws. It allows way too much interpretation. Laws are not meant to be interpreted. The are meant to be followed. They are supposed to be fair, just and accurate. I think science can be used here to remedy this issue, I'm just not exactly sure. This is what I'm urging people to argue and think about.
 
Yes, I can see many women becoming aroused while breastfeeding.. after not sleeping for weeks on end, barely finding time to have a shower, let alone eat, having s that are at times so sore that the baby even attaching makes the mother cry and sometimes said s can and will bleed and blister, or when the breast is engorged and agonisingly painful.. yeah.. I can see how all that can be an arousing experience. Or when you're past the pain stage and still find yourself so tired that you can barely remember what day it is, let alone the date and you're getting up every 2-3 hours in the night to breastfeed.. you can't remember if you even brushed your teeth that morning or even before going to that thing called bed.. something you've not experienced for what seems like ages now.. and then baby throws up all over you and your .. yeah.. really arousing that..

:rolleyes:


*sigh*

When babies are first born, they are placed on the belly of their mother or sometimes the dad will be asked to take off his top and cuddle the baby up against his chest to help warm the child up and to provide that first comforting touch. It is not arousing.. babies need to be held against the skin, especially in those first few months.. for them it is a manner of providing comfort and sometimes even helps relieve colic as your body heat helps them relax and fart to their heart's content.


And do all the time. Each time you change their nappy, give them a bath, roll around on the floor with them, dress them, hug them, etc.


It very well might. But that does not mean that the child instantly becomes a ual being because of the release of the hormone. The alternative is to teach babies to feed and change themselves so that as parents, we don't touch them, in case they release said hormone.


Huh? Do you turn "into a ual genital" each time someone bumps your hand as they walk past? How exactly does a whole body turn into a "sexual genital"? You're not making much sense.


I'm sorry, what? Becoming aroused is not exactly something one can predict. Can you control becoming aroused at any given time? As I said before, most women are usually too damn tired and/or sore to even consider feeling turned on when the baby breastfeeds.. You try not sleeping and/or getting up every 3 or so hours to breastfeed for an hour, changing a dirty nappy and then getting the little blighter off to sleep and then think whether knowing you need to change yet another nappy and have to get them to sleep after the feed, only to have to rinse and repeat again in a couple of hours.. whether you'd find the baby breastfeeding a turn on.

The laws regarding breastfeeding are getting tighter and tighter because people who are not the one's feeding are the one's finding issue with said breastfeeding. They think it is arousing and ual. Usually the mother and child do not because they know the whole saga that goes with it. But a and suckling at that breast.. it screams "sex" doesn't it?

That this subject could even be open to debate or discussion says a lot about just how perverted society has become to the point where a woman breastfeeding a child can be placed in the same line as "incest".

I am sorry for you experience. That is too bad. Many women do not have so much trouble as you.

In terms of your question about my statement about the "body being one giant genital" I was being facetious, but serious at the same time. Scientific discovery has proven all affectionate toucing is chemically zexual. But, I don't think this should be used as a way to increase the radicals on the left and right. The right may say breast feeding after a certain age is molestation. The left may say a body massage is molestation because the ual chemicals are released. Who knows how far they will try to take it? It just takes one case to destroy one families life.

I think it's high time they write things with science in mind to ward off moral zealotry imposed upon the masses.
 
Last edited:
:bravo:
You go !
What's next? Batheing the kids is incest?

It sure is something on on the exteme right and left's list. They have already used it to drag people in to a public forum to embarass them and accuse them of petophilia. They make no bones about their ruthless moral zealotry. The courts are ready to eat it up. They are very popular spectals in the press and media. Ratings galore. Bathing in their psuedo-scientific terms is called: grooming the victim.
 
It can be. No way in hell should I be nursing my 18 or 11 yr old.

Well provide a scientific basis for your claim. It seems culturually to be strange, but I'm not interested in laws that are based upon a preference. How can you show it scientifically to be something unacceptable.

I'll give you a hint. A law is created because a person's actions harm another person or creates a signficant threat. A scientific law demands evidence of harm or signficant threat. How can we use that reasoning to make it illegal? Could we say this act creates physical or emotional abuse? What threat to the child is being posed? This is the way to begin to consider a societal law in a scientific way.
 
Incest (n.): Sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry (as between a parent and a child).​

Release of oxytocin is clearly insufficient to amount to incest.

You might as well argue that because adrenalin is released when somebody kills in a murderous frenzy that all activities involving a release of adrenalin (e.g. sky diving) are the same as murder.

Well said. :)
 
Well provide a scientific basis for your claim. It seems culturually to be strange, but I'm not interested in laws that are based upon a preference. How can you show it scientifically to be something unacceptable....

Hmmm, I can't seem to find a scientific study on mother's who breast feed their 18 yr olds.
 
Here is Washington States defintion of zexual contact:

(2) "Zexual contact" means any touching of the zexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying zexual desire of either party or a third party.

Breastfeeding is done to ... er... feed the baby, you know. It is not done for sexual gratification.

Even satisfying "skin hunger" that children have will fit fine under their ambiguous phrasing:
(zexual contact) for the purpose of gratifying zexual desire of either party or a third party.

"skin hunger" is technically zexual desire because the chemicals being released are identical between two 18+ humans in physical affection and parent/child physical cuddling.

I think you're confusing "skin hunger" with "food hunger" and barking completely up the wrong tree.

So, how about my adrenalin analogy? I notice you haven't commented on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top