Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest?

[ancientregime]

I think you are on to something here.

We now have both a male [me] and a female [CM] who have used oxytocin and reported it did not cause arousal in and of itself. While not a scientifically rigorous study, this is reasonable anecdocal evidence for what we have here to conclude that while oxytocin may be released as a part of sex, it is released in a number of circumstances [nursing, hugging, running, etc.] and is not reliable for indicating sexual activity is happening - the op's original contention.

What's weird is his obcession with oxytocin when oxytocin would seem entirely irrelevant. There are numerous easier ways to test for arousal. The easiest is simply to check the person's heat signature. It wouldn't be hard to monitor for orgasms directly. But there is already ample evidence of actual arousal, including orgasm from breastfeeding, so what's the point?

Breastfeeding is not incest even if some women become aroused and have orgasms. I'm left wondering what ancientregime's real agenda is here.

Both these two people have claimed they have heighted emotions, which is categorized as arousal. They both indicate they don't think of it as sexual arousal. I am guessing this is because they only think of sexual arousal only occuring with vaginal flow/erection and ending in orgasm. This point alone would not exclude oxytocin as a sexual chemical just because independentaly taken it doesn't cause vaginal flow/erection in humans. This point alone doesn't exclude the 'heightened feeling' felt by both here who say they've taken oxytocin, as not a sexually fundamental emotion.

As far as my agenda goes, how about stop this prancing around acting like a know-it-all and making passive-agreessive backstabbing comments at me and be a staright forward about it and ask me?Hint: I already stated it.:blbl:

 

[scott3x]

ancient, you've spoken a lot of what the law may imply. What I'd like to know more about is what you yourself think the law should be. Are you saying that you're thinking hugging one's children should be outlawed?

No. The point of this thread is to show that because the law is written so broad and unspecific has the ability to create victims because things must be interpretable.

How it should be worded? I think we should let nature/science determine the law, not a person's beliefs.

You make the solution sound so simple- I really don't think it is .

Do you have an opinion as to how nature/science should modify the current laws?

 

[swarm]

I believe we were talking about oxytocin, not the phermone industry. You have failed to show how this comment of yours logically follows.

http://www.verolabs.com/index.php

 

[swarm]

erotic lactation

"Erotic lactation refers to an adult's sexual arousal from being breastfed."

I.e. an adult that get's off sucking a woman's lactating breast.

 

[swarm]

What if a woman breastfeeds not just to give nourishment to her child, but to be aroused as well?

Personally couldn't care less.

 

[swarm]

As far as my agenda goes, how about stop this prancing around acting like a know-it-all and making passive-agreessive backstabbing comments at me

I see you are as unable to differentiate plain old aggressive behavior from passive-aggressive behavior as you are feeling friendly from being sexually aroused.

 

[Orleander]

"Erotic lactation refers to an adult's sexual arousal from being breastfed."

I.e. an adult that get's off sucking a woman's lactating breast

the picture you show isn't about sex. Its about feeding someone. The same thing happened in The Grapes of Wrath.

How old does the child have to be before it becomes incest? What is teh cut-off age? 5? 10? 15?

 

[Bells]

Welcome to what the rest of the world calls Wikipedia

So to you, a parent hugging a child, playing with a child, holding a child, picking them up.. doing what is necessary to bring up a child.. to you that is "child grooming" as it pertains to pedophiles grooming a child for sex?

Is that what you are trying to say? That all parents are potential pedophiles because they care for their children and the manner in which they care for them is tantamount to child grooming in your opinion.. so we are thus, guilty of incest?

Am I getting this right?

Child grooming refers to the actions of pedophiles. You have basically stated that my hugging and playing with my children is akin to the same behaviour a pedophile exhibits in 'child grooming'... you even link a wiki definition to child grooming.

 

[James R]

As I pointed out earlier, both murder and running cause a release of adrenalin. Therefore, running is murder, by ancientregime's silly argument.

Enough said.

 

[scott3x]

What if a woman breastfeeds not just to give nourishment to her child, but to be aroused as well?

Personally couldn't care less.

I'm trying to work the pieces. From wikipedia:
Incest refers to any sexual activity between closely related persons (often within the immediate family) that is illegal or socially taboo.

The main issue here is this- as a child gets older and is able to eat other foods, their dependence on breast milk can get to the point wherein it's not necessary to breastfeed anymore. If the mother continues, many may be swayed one way or the other by her reasoning for it- is it simply to comfort her child, as one mother reasoned in an article I recently read? Or is she and possibly her child doing it more for other reasons? I remember someone posting information here about how some makers of baby formula are getting into all this by portraying breastfeeding as something sexual. I also remember a response from someone in that article that essentially said if american society can't handle breastfeeding being sexual they should 'eliminate' that aspect because breastfeeding is so important. I was rather amused at that notion- how on earth did they figure they would go about this? Realistically, though, what might happen is that thought police may enter the scene- arguing that if a mother is getting 'off' on it too much she might have her breastfeeding priviliges revoked, as it were. Actually, I think I might have heard that this may have actually happened once. The temporary solution (for mothers who don't want to go through this type of thing) would be to essentially play down any sexual arousal they may feel, but the long term solution, as far as I'm concerned, is to quit demonizing sexual arousal.

There are 3 very important issues here:
1- How do you define a "sexual activity"? Wikipedia doesn't even have an entry on that 2 word term.

2- How do you define what would be illegal in our society. Other then the woman who was arrested for having a picture of her breastfeeding her baby, it appears as though the law hasn't gotten into this too much.

3- How do you define what is societally taboo- for instance, many frown on breastfeeding beyond a certain age (2 say), and yet I haven't yet heard of a precedent wherein a woman was arrested for going beyond this.

 

[Tiassa]

Ye gads this is effed up!

I would say I've been watching this thread with a certain amount of amusement, but in truth it's kind of depressing. The underlying downer here is the suggestion that one might have such a warped view of sexuality as to fail to understand the difference between various forms of positive, bonding contact. It would seem as if the proposition calls for anything pleasurable that results in, say, the release and absorption of oxytocin, to be regarded as a sexual process.

Experientially, I can say that as a child it was fairly easy to distinguish between one general set of pleasurable experiences and those that would later come to be called sexual. Perhaps it is intuitive.

To the other, I would state that I can regularly observe a child's differentiation between sexual/presexual impulses and other pleasures. Certainly, there are blurred zones that can be accounted for in a Freudian context, but these seem, for the most part, easily identifiable as genital/phallic- or anal-stage regressions.

Looking to our topic poster, it is well enough to note the degrees of removal Ancientregime puts between himself and the idea:

• "... it may provide evidence for moralists to...."
• "... it may provide evidence for moralists to ...."​

Yet despite that removal, we find how many pages later that our neighbor is somewhat dedicated to making the point. Yes, it may provide evidence for moralists to pitch a fit, but that's some extraordinary moralism, above and beyond the neurotic prudery to which Americans, at least, are fairly accustomed.

Is Ancientregime one of these moralists? Does he believe that a hug equals sexual abuse? No? Okay, then why harp on the point?

We might also look to the breastfeeding example, which lacks a certain dimension. Arguments about the propriety of breastfeeding consider the act in a public setting, and generally speaking, what state of mind gets off watching an infant gnaw a swollen, chapped, oft-bruised nipple? Still, though, while those who find public breastfeeding a sexual act are a minority, those who find breastfeeding, period, a sexual act are even fewer.

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that in sexualizing an act-that is, assigning it sexual value—one can corrupt what is otherwise innocent. For many children, sexual development also responds to and defines itself according to boundaries. Teach a kid it's dirty ....

Seriously, why do so many men look up skirts? How is watching someone go to the bathroom sexually arousing? And I would swear the lingerie industry relies on a psychological conflict in making what's not supposed to be seen attractive to look at.

So I admit I'm curious. Behind the layers of removal, beneath the question itself, is a seed of idea. What is that seed? And what fruit does it offer for harvest?

 

[scott3x]

So to you, a parent hugging a child, playing with a child, holding a child, picking them up.. doing what is necessary to bring up a child.. to you that is "child grooming" as it pertains to pedophiles grooming a child for sex?

Is that what you are trying to say? That all parents are potential pedophiles because they care for their children and the manner in which they care for them is tantamount to child grooming in your opinion.. so we are thus, guilty of incest?

Am I getting this right?

Child grooming refers to the actions of pedophiles. You have basically stated that my hugging and playing with my children is akin to the same behaviour a pedophile exhibits in 'child grooming'... you even link a wiki definition to child grooming.

I agree that ancientregime is stretching things beyond their normal limits.

However, I don't think that his goal is to seriously accuse you of being a child predator but rather to highlight an issue- what constitutes a pedophile? The word has grown a life of its own; as I've mentioned in the past, the 2 words that make up pedophile, pedo (one definition of which is child) and phile (love) simply means someone who loves children. However, apparently the first person to actually combine the 2 terms meant someone who is attracted to minors. From what I remember, there was no mention that it needed to be an exclusive attraction to minors, although nowadays it seems that some would like to define it that way. Personally I think that type of a definition would be overly narrow, however. So does the law; from wikipedia's pedophilia entry:
In law enforcement, the term "pedophile" is generally used to describe those accused or convicted of the sexual abuse of a minor (including both prepubescent children and adolescent minors younger than the local age of consent).[13]

Looking at that definition, it seems clear to me that it is overly vague- if all one needs to do is accuse someone of child abuse, then being labelled a pedophile is dangerously easy. Which, coming to think of it, it really is sometimes. Lives have certainly been ruined over false allegations.

A legal dictionary defines a pedophile thusly:
A person afflicted with "pedophilia", a sexual perversion in which children are preferred as sexual partner.

And what if a person's preference is adults, and yet there is still attraction to some minors? Does this mean the person isn't a pedophile? I believe Judith Levine, in her book "Harmful to Minors", states that fathers in particular are becoming afraid to engage in simple things such as hugs, especially with their daughters, precisely for fear that they will be labelled as such. She also mentions that -many- adults can be attracted to adolescents due to the 'anti pedo' sentiment, this is generally kept under wraps. To some extent I think it makes sense- people used to get married younger and people can generally reproduce well before they reach 18. I think that in this day and age, it makes much more sense, atleast in developed countries, to not have children until one is 18+, but I think it's safe to say that evolution's view of sexual maturity is generally different then the law's.

 

[lucifers angel]

ancientregime

i would like to rip you to pieces right now,

if hugging my children, kissing them and telling them that i love them makes me a pedaphile then i wold like to see the way your kids grow up, the charity BERNARDOS agree with mums and dads hugging they're chilren, kissing them and god forbid playing games with them, i showed your post to my family Social Worker and she said your an idiot!!

i tell my kids i love them everytime they walk out the front door to go to school and see friends etc, i play with my youngest child all the time, my oldest is told i love him every day i hug him when he wants a hug and somtimes when i need a hug, my youngest child is also hugged whenever he needs it, and somtimes when he's not,

====================

Have you hugged your child today?

And we mean really 'hug', not just playfully tickled him or kissed him on the cheek. have you held him close to your heart for a few moments so he feels your love without you having to say a word? We're just talking about the good, old-fashioned bear hug that generates nothing but warmth, affection and a feeling of acceptance.

Make hugging your child a daily ritual. In fact, stop for a moment and think - "did I hug my child today"? And if not, why not? What held you back? Pure thoughtlessness, or was the thought "give a hug, spoil the child" running through your mind? Surprisingly, a large number of parents shy away from being too affectionate with their children because they believe their children will develop a swollen head. If you fall into that category, can you honestly say that you'd rather your child have low self-esteem than an ounce of overconfidence? Yet others feel that too much physical affection may make the child someone who grows up letting his emotions take charge. He may grow up to be someone who thinks from the heart, not the head. Not True. Hugging people doesn't stop them from using their mind any more than being rational doesn't stop them from being emotional.

Enough studies have been conducted to conclusively prove that human touch heals and increases one's life span. Not only that, human touch is also essential for human growth and development.


The benefits of a hug

Hugging is healthy, for the body and the soul. Hugging is hygienic. Hugging won't give you AIDS and it won't increase the population. It boosts self-esteem and brings about a sense of security in a way no word can. Hugging reaches inside and touches your soul. The world may heal a bit if hugging increases, so do your bit. Get your body into action. Start hugging. After reading this article, give your child a hug. Then hug your spouse tight. When you meet friends at a party or a nightclub, don't just kiss the air on their cheeks or shake their hands. Open your arms wide and, that's right, give them a hug.


Everybody loves a hug

Hugging can do wonders for a relationship. Watch your bond with your children strengthen as your hugs increase. Everybody loves a hug, not just your children. Extend your hugs to other family members as well. You find it difficult to hug your sister because it's not part of your greeting ritual and you feel awkward? Remember, the person who is the hardest to hug is usually the one who needs it the most.


====================================

http://www.indiaparenting.com/develop/data/develop12_02.shtml

=====================================

i was in a shop one day with my youngest, (sorry for the members who have heard this before) and my son was sitting in the trolley and wanted a hug and kiss, so i stopped doing what i was doing and gave him the hug and kiss he wanted, and this woman said that i shouldnt do that because it was private.

so seeing a mum hug and kiss her child is private, go and lie down in a box and nail the lid shut!!

======================

no one will say a cat shouldnt feed ehr kittens in public so why can't we kiss and play with our kids?

 

[swarm]

the picture you show isn't about sex. Its about feeding someone. The same thing happened in The Grapes of Wrath.

How old does the child have to be before it becomes incest? What is teh cut-off age? 5? 10? 15?

You answered your own question. It isn't about sex, its about feeding some one.

 

[swarm]

The main issue here is this- as a child gets older and is able to eat other foods, their dependence on breast milk can get to the point wherein it's not necessary to breastfeed anymore.

There are societies where 5 is not uncommon, but really this seems like a non issue getting a free blow job so it swells all out of proportion - to keep with the sexual tone.

 

[Orleander]

You answered your own question. It isn't about sex, its about feeding some one.

so if you are nursing your 5 year old to feed him, its ok. If you are nursing your 5 yr old just to pacify him, its incest?

 

[scott3x]

I would say I've been watching this thread with a certain amount of amusement, but in truth it's kind of depressing. The underlying downer here is the suggestion that one might have such a warped view of sexuality as to fail to understand the difference between various forms of positive, bonding contact. It would seem as if the proposition calls for anything pleasurable that results in, say, the release and absorption of oxytocin, to be regarded as a sexual process.

Experientially, I can say that as a child it was fairly easy to distinguish between one general set of pleasurable experiences and those that would later come to be called sexual. Perhaps it is intuitive.

To the other, I would state that I can regularly observe a child's differentiation between sexual/presexual impulses and other pleasures. Certainly, there are blurred zones that can be accounted for in a Freudian context, but these seem, for the most part, easily identifiable as genital/phallic- or anal-stage regressions.

Looking to our topic poster, it is well enough to note the degrees of removal Ancientregime puts between himself and the idea:

• "... it may provide evidence for moralists to...."
• "... it may provide evidence for moralists to ...."​

Yet despite that removal, we find how many pages later that our neighbor is somewhat dedicated to making the point. Yes, it may provide evidence for moralists to pitch a fit, but that's some extraordinary moralism, above and beyond the neurotic prudery to which Americans, at least, are fairly accustomed.

Is Ancientregime one of these moralists? Does he believe that a hug equals sexual abuse? No? Okay, then why harp on the point?

After he wrote this post, I've been running under the assumption (perhaps mistaken) that his true goal is to get a discussion going about what really constitutes moral and immoral behaviour in regards to sexuality.

We might also look to the breastfeeding example, which lacks a certain dimension. Arguments about the propriety of breastfeeding consider the act in a public setting, and generally speaking, what state of mind gets off watching an infant gnaw a swollen, chapped, oft-bruised nipple? Still, though, while those who find public breastfeeding a sexual act are a minority, those who find breastfeeding, period, a sexual act are even fewer.

Lastly, it is worth pointing out that in sexualizing an act-that is, assigning it sexual value—one can corrupt what is otherwise innocent. For many children, sexual development also responds to and defines itself according to boundaries. Teach a kid it's dirty ....

I agree with that point completely. I also think it doesn't just apply to breastfeeding...

Seriously, why do so many men look up skirts? How is watching someone go to the bathroom sexually arousing?

I would contend that the more sexually repressed one is, the more these types of activities could be deemed arousing. Personally, I prefer actual displays of sexuality instead of simple displays of skin, as even normal r rated movies provide these days. I'm also not a fan of the whole 'hidden cam' thing, although I recognize that it's pretty much unavoidable in some circumstances, such as store security.

And I would swear the lingerie industry relies on a psychological conflict in making what's not supposed to be seen attractive to look at.

I agree- such as female jeans wherein a woman's buns area is white.

So I admit I'm curious. Behind the layers of removal, beneath the question itself, is a seed of idea. What is that seed? And what fruit does it offer for harvest?

The seed for me is nothing less then the morality of different sexual activities. I personally believe there really is something to defining breastfeeding as a sexual activity- I think that no one would deny that sucking on a woman's breasts if they were -not- lactating would be construed as sexual. While the act of nourishing a child certainly diminishes the 'it's sexual' reaction, I personally can't rule it out; and the more it strays from the 'normal', the more it can seem that way. Finally, it gets into the whole issue of erogenous zones, of which breasts are only one.

 

[scott3x]

ancientregime

i would like to rip you to pieces right now...

This is the problem with delving into issues of this nature; they can get fairly emotional.

if hugging my children, kissing them and telling them that i love them makes me a pedaphile then i wold like to see the way your kids grow up, the charity BERNARDOS agree with mums and dads hugging they're chilren, kissing them and god forbid playing games with them, i showed your post to my family Social Worker and she said your an idiot!!

Perhaps part of the problem is that you're not distancing ancient's argument from his actual beliefs. I too was confused for a time, until he wrote post 99 in this thread.

i tell my kids i love them everytime they walk out the front door to go to school and see friends etc, i play with my youngest child all the time, my oldest is told i love him every day i hug him when he wants a hug and somtimes when i need a hug, my youngest child is also hugged whenever he needs it, and somtimes when he's not...

i was in a shop one day with my youngest, (sorry for the members who have heard this before) and my son was sitting in the trolley and wanted a hug and kiss, so i stopped doing what i was doing and gave him the hug and kiss he wanted, and this woman said that i shouldnt do that because it was private.

so seeing a mum hug and kiss her child is private, go and lie down in a box and nail the lid shut!!

======================

no one will say a cat shouldnt feed her kittens in public so why can't we kiss and play with our kids?

Sounds good to me. But the fact that even you there are people like the aforementioned woman who feel that this type of thing shouldn't be seen in public... I think it speaks eloquently for the dangers of 'protecting' kids too much.

 

[scott3x]

the picture you show isn't about sex. Its about feeding someone. The same thing happened in The Grapes of Wrath.

How old does the child have to be before it becomes incest? What is teh cut-off age? 5? 10? 15?

You answered your own question. It isn't about sex, its about feeding some one.

Incest doesn't necessarily involve sexual intercourse; wikipedia says that it need only involve a sexual activity; as I've mentioned previously, wikipedia has no entry for sexual activity, so we have to use our imaginations as to what defines one. And while I believe that breastfeeding is definitely a good thing for a baby, as in response to Tiassa in post 117:
I personally believe there really is something to defining breastfeeding as a sexual activity- I think that no one would deny that sucking on a woman's breasts if they were -not- lactating would be construed as sexual. While the act of nourishing a child certainly diminishes the 'it's sexual' reaction, I personally can't rule it out; and the more it strays from the 'normal', the more it can seem that way.

I got this image in my head; a scene from a provocative movie, say;
A woman reveals a breast in, say, a restaurant; the patrons are shocked. Her husband comes back from changing the baby, and puts the baby on her nipple; relief from the patrons. And all the while, an irony, atleast for me- I personally find breastfeeding to be much more sexual then the simple baring of a breast, from changing clothes, say. In the ending, I think it could be argued that both what is a sexual activity and which forms of sexual activities are condoned or condemned is in many ways defined by the societies we live in.

 

[scott3x]

The main issue here is this- as a child gets older and is able to eat other foods, their dependence on breast milk can get to the point wherein it's not necessary to breastfeed anymore.

There are societies where 5 is not uncommon, but really this seems like a non issue getting a free blow job so it swells all out of proportion - to keep with the sexual tone.

You lost me with what I assume was a blow job metaphor...

Anyway, I'm not against breastfeeding at 5 or longer, so long as the society where this takes place is accepting of such things; if not, I personally don't think it'd be worth the trouble, although clearly some people do. When I was around 2, my mother said I bit her and so that was that, laugh . Besides, she was about to have my first sister...