You are absolutely right. Titties are fun but they have a job to do too. I can’t even imagine why a father would object to the most natural way of feeding their own child. Even speaking as a guy, I think that is a clear case of abuse of duty. It is perfectly possible for things to serve more than one purpose. I like nice breasts on many women but that has never been a key asset. I have never been turned on or offended by a woman nursing in public. That is just as erotic as a newborn calf sucking on its mother’s teat on a farm.
There is a hormone cascade that makes your breasts produce milk when you are nearing the end of pregnancy and after you give birth. The hormones will continue as long as the stimulus for it, i.e. Sucking on the nipples, is continued. When the regular stimulus is removed the hormones will decrease until the mom no longer lactates. So yes, wet nurses generally were pregnant, fed their babies and the additional child and could take on other infants as long as it was uninterrupted. Women today have been known to breastfeed children to 5 years and beyond.
Did these men also want the babies to be delivered by c-section so she wouldn’t get stretched out down there? :mad: Why would anyone want to have a baby with a man who is that selfish, anyway?
I have heard that when Paul McCartney’s second wife got pregnant, he didn’t want her to breastfeed for that reason. :rolleyes: If you think about it, Linda probably nursed their kids until they started school.
I’ve only had one woman tell me that she had to give up breastfeeding because her husband had a bad attitude about it; she said that whenever they went out in public, her by now ex-husband (gee, I wonder why) would point at her milk-swollen breasts and yell, “Check out them hooters!” :eek:
What would be the problem with the kid and the dad sharing? There’s one tit for each.
…
Wait, that is not a good mental image. Not at all. Sorry about that.
Many women consider breast play a* necessary* step in foreplay. (Just don’t stop there.)
Breasts aren’t exactly sex organs. Neither are necks or hands. But human sexuality isn’t really just about “sex organs.”
Morris was a 1960s science popularizer and his ideas are not really taken seriously by biologist today. Like almost all behavioral evolutionary hypotheses, they are simply unprovable.
I’ve seen cartoons where that was depicted.
I think the term “erogenous zones” applies to breasts.
In more direct response to OP, however, it’s pretty clear that breasts do play a sexual role IMO. At least in recent evolutionary times.
Not really. 
My wife was considered high risk. It’s been six years so I don’t remember the details, but this is Easy Asia where breast feeding isn’t pushed as much.
Yeah, it’s unprovable but his ideas are still a decent speculative theory and many of them make a lot of sense. He also posited that evolutionary-wise, permanently swollen breasts (unique to human women versus all other primates) made standing-upright women appear sexually attractive from the front and behind (the breasts and cleavage mimicking the round ass and butt crack).
He also points out that unlike most all other mammals human men have no penis-bone, meaning they can’t just instantly pork anything on four legs or less, they have to go thru a courtship ritual to become aroused. He also suggests that the reason why pointing your index finger at someone or, even more, giving them the middle finger is so universally offensive is because it resembles a cock & balls. All seem at least plausible to me.
It was the 60s and all, but by no means was Morris a Chariots of the Gods ancient aliens-type crackpot pseudo-scientist…
Agreed… Morris is always interesting, and at least has a veneer of plausibility. His two books on pets, Dogwatching and Catwatching are pretty good, although, as with The Naked Ape, he pushes speculation as far as it can go, well past the engineering red-line. (I think he sits on the emergency valve.)
He isn’t a crank…but he skates on really thin ice (and mixes metaphors too.)
If any part of a body has a lot of nerve endings and can be stimulated for pleasure they are usually going to become sexualised. Aside from the obvious ones, for some people that can also happen with ears, necks, legs, and maybe even hands.
Toes.
But despite the fact the it feels good to have your prostate rubbed, we generally don’t fetishize it to the point where people think its inappropriate to have to poop because - I don’t know - you might get off, or might get someone else off.
So breast implants increase milk production?
Fascinating.
Funny buttocks/breasts photo (NSFW?: cleavage).
Specifically he mentioned the gelada, a baboon-like old world monkey that have a “chest patch” mimicking the rump, and pointed out that this hypothesis seems to apply to humans too. Unlike most mammals where sexual signals are olfactory, in primates they’re primarily visual.
I was at a family reunion this summer and my cousin seems to have married a misguided feminist breastfeeding advocate. She spent the entire time conspicuously holding her two year old against her bare breast in what seemed like trolling for martyrdom. The poor kid wasn’t eating, he just wanted to play with the other kids!
That side of my family is very conservative, but breastfeeding is The Right Thing To Do and formula is for a A Different, Less Fortunate Kind Of Family. It’s not a shocking antic or a prudishly discouraged act of immodesty, it’s a fully encouraged fact of life.
Counterintuitively her display only served to make my cousins with babies feed them elsewhere to avoid being framed in a selfie and broadcast on Facebook as like-minded warriors against the patriarchy. Which probably reinforces her false impression of breastfeeding negativity.
I’ve heard it said by some militant breastfeeders.
I may be dense, but my brain just fails to compute how anyone can equate breastfeeding in public with sex to begin with. You know what is sexy? A naked boob. You know what is *not *sexy? A naked boob with an infant attached to it.
Or, if someone finds that sexy, they probably actually do have some weird fetish. Which, I mean, is fine. Nothing wrong with that. Whatever rocks your boat, I don’t give a damn. I just don’t see why it’s my problem, particularly.
Also, it doesn’t make any sense, when you think about it. “What you are doing appeals to my fetish! Stop doing it right now!” The hell? Just enjoy the view. Actually, this is something about prudishness that I’ve always profoundly failed to understand. “What you are doing titillates me! Stop doing it!” Wait, what now?
Again, though, as I said, maybe I’m just dense.