Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest?

The main problem I have with Levine is that she supports a legal angle that is faith based prosecution. It doesn't require any evidence that fits a scientific criteria. A person may only say they were raped and that is all that is neccessary to find guilt. This is the prosecutorial logic used to send Jews to gas chambers and witches to the gallows. I am for a draconian movement of complete removal of it from our system of law. A technocratic system of law does not create victims, but a faith based one said to error on the side of protection is hypocritical in that it is guaranteed to manufacture victims. It is not the responsibility of the law to create faith based ideals for protection, it contradicts the integrity on which the law functions--emprical reason.

I think the fact that chemicals are present are of primary importance. It establishes an objective basis. The amount chemicals present for any given activity can be used to quantify the degree of an act. Acuracy is very important in making a sound judgement.

The power imbalance is important, I wouldn't rule it out. I think it's only relevant when a threat is made to the person with less power in the situation and that threat must show that the person with less power will have their rights trampled if they do not engage in some kind of act. If a threat is not made, this power relationship is irrelevant.

Definitely who benefits matters because this forms a basis for exploitation. If the act is one sided exploitation can be proven.

Harm is fundamentally the most important. If an act causes no harm it doesn't fit in the category as criminal. The philosophy of the law is based upon the common good of individuals and the whole. If an act doesn't harm someone and it's considered a crime then this is moral preference legislation. which is against the common good of all who would prefer to act freely and not be dictated on matters that affect others in a nuetral way.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oxytocin with wide spread accross the animal kingdom. It has a long evolutionary history. It is present in bonding, arousal and orgasm. Sex is absolutely neccessary for our survial and oxytocin tends to surround itself around this act, and rears it's head a few other collateral places. Due to these fundamental facts, I think this is why it considered sexual in nature.

I'm thinking that people equate sexual with only intense orgasm or erection or vaginal flow. So far from what I understand there is an orchestration of chemicals involved, but oxytocin seems to be the major sexual player. For instance, oxytocin may not create an erection directly, but it is neccessary for producing a chemical that does create an erection.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It *still* does not logically follow that oxytocin means an encounter is in any way sexual.

I'm very fond of my female friends, and I'm sure I produce oxytocin when with them, but I'd rather they didn't rub their clit on me.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I'm left wondering how any one other than a pedophile would carry on so about such a non issue.

 

She does? Did you read Harmful to Minors or are you getting this view from something else she wrote? I didn't get that impression but if you found that this was indeed the case, do you have any writing of hers that backs this up?

I agree to some extent, but I have a few caveats. If someone says that someone else raped them and they don't share any particular environment (as in they live in the same house), then I don't see that their should be much of a problem with slapping a restraining order on the accused in terms of them going to their home; after all, while it may be that the rape didn't happen, it also may be that it did and I think we can all agree that the possible harmship of a restraining order from the acuser's home is nothing compared to the possibility that the acused did indeed do the raping and would like a second go at it.

Ofcourse, this becomes much more complicated if the people in question live together.

If by technocratic you mean 'must provide evidence', I disagree- there are times when hard evidence simply can't be provided. This doesn't mean that a crime hasn't occurred, however. This is why I support measures like restraining orders where restraining orders won't be so harmful to the accused but can be a real help or even a life saver for the accuser.

Not if the focus is on prevention of contact with the accuser instead of simply jailing the accused.

I'm very skeptical of this. As many here have pointed out, some chemicals released during sexual activities are also released during non sexual activities.

I wouldn't either. However, I think that our society thinks far too much on whether there's a power imbalance and far too little on whether or not anyone suffered from the fact. And I go further then simply thinking about sexual activities, which is sometimes the only time people think of when it comes to such things. I would never want to subject myself to being in the U.S. military for instance, simply because I've heard of what goes on there. And no, I'm not only talking about the many accounts of women being raped or otherwise abused and then frequently left to fend for themselves if they have the courage to report it, I'm talking about the way -all- recruits are trained.

I agree and disagree. You'd have to give specific examples before I could rule on any particular possibility

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I don't see anything wrong if one side benefits while the other side is simply ok with it- think about a job- the employer may benefit much more then the employee. But as long as the employee still thinks he or she is getting a good enough deal, well, that's life.

I believe I agree to this. I believe that society was wrong to jail Mary Kay Letourneau, who taught grade 6, just because she had sex with a willing grade 6 student of hers, Vili Fualaau. Calling willing sex rape or statutory rape is, in my view, intended to deceive. Calling it unlawful sex is the truth of the matter. Now that the 7 years of jail is over, she's gotten married to him. As the subtitle to an article from MSNBC states:
Mary Kay and Vili deserve wedded bliss, says Letourneau's friend

 

Breast feeding at 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxv6R9fUO74

 

I don't think that accusation is fair. I myself am not too into this issue of chemicals being released; however, the issue of whether or not breastfeeding is 'ok', especially at older ages, is relevant to parents doing or considering it. And frankly this topic has gotten much further then only talking about breastfeeding. Perhaps I'll make a new thread that deals with certain other issues in this thread.

 

This post is in response to the 1st part of Tiassa's post 133 in this thread.

My guess is that he does so in order to help ensure that behaviours that he finds acceptable shouldn't be deemed immoral.

No idea why he chose breastfeeding. It seems that he thinks that this oxytocin thing is important. Admitedly I'm not so keen on the idea that it's all that important; however, I believe me and ancientregime do agree that the whole field of sexuality seems to me to be a minefield wherein you really have to watch where you walk; I certainly respect his interest to clarify what should and shouldn't be allowed.

Not necessarily as someone here made clear when they posted the story of a picture of a mother breastfeeding and the ordeal they went through afterwards. In the ending, as long as what happens where you live doesn't get into the hands of a cop, you're safe. If it does, all bets are off.

Personally, I just don't see you and your brother streaking across the house as all that sexual myself. But if your pictures were to be found on the internet, child porn charges could loom. It's these ridiculous pieces of law that I hope will change in the future.

 

This post is in response to the 2nd part of Tiassa's post 133 in this thread.

I agree. To borrow a phrase from The Da Vinci Code, "so dark the con of man."

I have a strong feeling religions wouldn't be so keen on agreeing with you that they do such a thing, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. I believe you are referring to 'original sin', a concept I don't think I've ever agreed with.

Don't really remember those... but I think the white/bleached out part of the jones are still important ;-).

I'm not sure what you're referring to as 'the one' (white part of pants?) and what you're referring to as 'the other' (darker patches, possibly in the front?).

Why do you think that?

 

This post is in response to the 3rd part of Tiassa's post 133 in this thread.

How do you find him to be unyielding?

To me, unyielding is when someone sticks to an argument; in the above case, I'm thinking that perhaps ancientregime simply missed the original post or he forgot about it and it took the reminder for him to get back to it?

Trying to agree on what constitutes sexual things is, in my view, extremely difficult. I think this is something he brought up and I think that it has merit. I think that ancientregime would -agree- with you in one sense- if we define too many things as 'sexual' and then we criminalize too much as well, we're in for trouble- and it's clear that we're there now.

There's one thing I can agree with you on- I doubt the releasing of oxytocin will ever constitute a crime

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

From what someone else has said in this thread, oxytocin is a precursor chemical needed for sexual arousal. That, I believe, is certainly interesting. The real issue as far as I'm concerned is why it gets released at x or y time. One doesn't have to be breastfeeding to be aroused.

Sounds good

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

This post is in response to the 4th part of Tiassa's post 133 in this thread.

Not sure where you're going with this one...

Nope, it just means we're closely related to certain primates ;-).

Whoa there. If bonobos are closely related to us, the above argument doesn't really fly. Honestly, I think the only reason there's such a fuss concerning sexuality is because of what is closely related to it- love and chidlren. For this reason, people want to somehow hermetically seal off sexuality from other things. In my view, it's rather absurd to even try; sexuality is ubiquotous and generally rebels against such treatment. I believe that instead of trying to compartamentalize our sexuality, we should simply acknowledge its existence in all its various forms and simply try to ensure that it doesn't stray towards the dark side.

Are pictures of naked children on a beach or running around overtly sexual? Perhaps not even for the Freudian

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. And yet, they're virtually always labelled as 'child porn'.

I don't think anyone was arguing for -that-, laugh

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

The possibilities sound interesting; I personally think that he's afraid that the laws are encroaching on areas where they have no right to be, something I can certainly agree with. I think the bottom line here, ofcourse, is that revealing why he brought it up might well get him throttled by his lawyer, if he had one at any rate. Put simply, when it comes to issues like these, it's generally best to speak of them one step removed, as he's trying to do.

Sounds good.

Interesting questions; perhaps he simply found the term 'oxytocin' and began to think that it was a catch all for sexuality. In any case, perhaps ancientregime will clarify on one or both of the questions you pose. I myself am interested in sexuality issues in general for many reasons, most of which I've outlined in this thread and others.

Perhaps. I personally would like to encourage people to talk about sexuality in a civil manner. While I'm sure that some may have been deeply offended by some of the things he's said, the fact that when he has probably caused the most offense he was actually speaking of what the people he's -against- believe is, I think, the most important point to remember.

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

. Embarassing mother-son moments; I have a story myself; I think I'll keep it to myself though

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

I have 2 sisters, as well as a mother which you certainly had, but having baths with the sister that was 2 years younger than me until around 6 (I definitely remember when the shared baths ended; just as I was getting -very- interested in my sister's differences from me), didn't mean that lingerie catalogues and even stronger stuff held no interest to me; if anything, it made it even more appealing. The 'stronger then' lingerie stuff wasn't immediately appealing- I had been indoctrinated to believe that pornography was bad and that indoctrination lasted until around 16 or 17.

Sure. I also think that part of it may well be the 'innocence' of it. A person going to the washroom frequently isn't doing it for sexual reasons and in a culture that at times demonizes sexuality, that can be a real turn on. The depressing irony is that the very fact that children are frequently non-sexual is something I suspect to be a turn on for pedophiles; I strongly suspect that many of them were in fact sexually repressed and thus overt sexuality may at times repel them. Take certain priests, for instance. More aggrivating still is that the argument that a pedophile would be attracted to even non sexual images of children is then used to ban even those images. In essence; some sexually repressed individuals become pedophiles. Then our society represses images that only some of those sexually repressed people could find arousing. Why? Who is even -harmed- by all this sillyness? I believe the argument is that pedos will then go on to actually harm children, but I've seen no evidence of this. I've even heard the reverse, that it can be used to relieve pedophiles from actually committing a crime, which is one of the reasons that a judge ruled in part for the creator of some literature that was labelled as child porn, in Canada's Supreme Court R. vs. Sharpe decision.

Lol

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Agreed.

In ancient times, incest was at times quite common. Today, while most people acknowledge that incest (especially if it occurs in more then one generation) can be genetically dangerous, books have been written that disagree with the general view that it has to be a bad thing, such as On the Incest Taboo - The Offspring of Aeolus (I just found the link right now, the wonders of google

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

). I found the following excerpt from the above link to be interesting:
*******

Though much-disputed by geneticists, some scholars maintain that the incest taboo may have been originally designed to prevent the degeneration of the genetic stock of the clan or tribe through intra-family breeding (closed endogamy). But, even if true, this no longer applies. In today's world incest rarely results in pregnancy and the transmission of genetic material. Sex today is about recreation as much as procreation.

Good contraceptives should, therefore, encourage incestuous, couples. In many other species inbreeding or straightforward incest are the norm. Finally, in most countries, incest prohibitions apply also to non-genetically-related people.

It seems, therefore, that the incest taboo was and is aimed at one thing in particular: to preserve the family unit and its proper functioning.

Incest is more than a mere manifestation of a given personality disorder or a paraphilia (incest is considered by many to be a subtype of pedophilia). It harks back to the very nature of the family. It is closely entangled with its functions and with its contribution to the development of the individual within it.

The family is an efficient venue for the transmission of accumulated property as well as information - both horizontally (among family members) and vertically (down the generations). The process of socialization largely relies on these familial mechanisms, making the family the most important agent of socialization by far.

The family is a mechanism for the allocation of genetic and material wealth. Worldly goods are passed on from one generation to the next through succession, inheritance and residence. Genetic material is handed down through the sexual act. It is the mandate of the family to increase both by accumulating property and by marrying outside the family (exogamy).

Clearly, incest prevents both. It preserves a limited genetic pool and makes an increase of material possessions through intermarriage all but impossible.​

*******

 

This post is in response to ancientregime's post 29 in this thread.

Perhaps not, but I have certainly seen evidence that judges are receptive to public perception, as are lawmakers, and I think wikipedia is frequently a strong representative of its more learned elements. I definitely believe that discussion of the issues involved will lead to more informed legal decisions that deal with said issues.

 

This post is in response to the 5th and final part of Tiassa's post 133 in this thread.

Hypotheticals abound; however, the only thing that I think is confirmed is that he read the wiki article on erotic lactation and thought extremists might decide that breastfeeding is a sexual act; that question has been brought up elsewhere:
Oxytocin and breastfeeding - does this hormone make breastfeeding a sexual act?

The article brings up another one in turn:
Breastfeeding a Crime?

-That- article references an article from the Dallas Observer; it doesn't specify the article, but based on the name of the mother, I was able to find 4 links from said newspaper, 3 of which actually had something concerning the case:
1-Hour Arrest - When does a snapshot of a mother breast-feeding her child become kiddie porn? Ask the Richardson police.

Breast Is Best (150 letters, all but one of which criticized the actions of local authorities)

Touching a Nerve - State walks away from breast-feeding case

I believe that ancientregime is concerned that governments are encroaching too much on our liberties, a concern I certainly share.

 

It is a chemical at the core of all sexual behavior in humans and many animals. There is plenty of empirical evidence that does back this up. So, yes it does logically follow. On the other hand, your statement is simple negation, but you have no empirical support for it. You argument is merely negative subjectivity. What evidence do you have that shows oxytocin is not a core sexual chemical. Once you provide that your argument of negation can be taken seriously.

 

Does making comments here qualify as "carrying on"? I think so. By your own logic you call yourself a pedophile. Ooops, you pointed the finger at yourself.:m:

 

I am finding it difficult to take this thread seriously...anyone else?

 

These cases of sex abuse she is targeting require only an accusation for a person to called guilty. It's not a scientific finding of guilt, it's faith based. There is much to be said about this, possible in a thread of it's own.

It is not the resopnsibility of the law to error on any side. It is the a forum to find guilt or prove innocence based upon scientific criteria. One step away from this and it breaks the law by knowingly allowing victimization produced directly by it's actions. The law is not responsible for protecting victims who cannot provide evidence that proves their aggressor guilty, because it violates the very basis of empirical reasoning and consistence justice--it breaks the law it is supposed to uphold.

You are violating the constitutional rights of citizens without accusations backed up objectively. This is faith based justice, not science based justice.

Still faith based reasoning which cannot be taken seriously. Limiting a person's whereabouts, where that cannot be proven to be the actual victimizer, in no way brings about an order satisfying real protection.

If a person's safety is most important, then limiting themselves from situations where it is possible to be victimized. Don't go walking into the ghetto with fancy jewelry and expect a restraining order to protect you. Carry a handgun. Carry pepper spray. Stay in groups.

I get really irritated that people want to battle symptoms, when there are many solutions to prevention.

Oxytocin is present during bonding, sexual foreplay and orgasm, and running your butt off through the fertile crescent. Intercourse is the activity neccessary for us to produce offspring. From a Darwinian perspective oxytocin is around the core behavior that insures our survival-sex. It does exist in peripherial behavior that helps survival that isn't neccessary reproductive, running through the fields. But, it's logical that it's primary purpose is related to the act it most surrounds--the act most relevant to our survival--sex.

 

Reading through The Five

I group these together because they're relevant, and derive from separate considerations of diverse components of a larger point. Some of the separations you draw split the point, so occasionally I'll be rejoining two disconnected parts of the issue.

Looking to that last sentence in the quote—respecting his interest to clarify what should and shouldn't be allowed—there is something amiss about his methodology compared to your assumption of his motives. That is, I have no moral objection to your kindly and optimistic assessment of his approach, but in the practical context it doesn't reconcile with what I'm seeing.

Perceptions, perceptions .... Insert theory about the dangers of presumption here.

I get the point that he thinks certain aspects are important, but the question of why comes back to a recurring theme in political arguments. To take liberals and conservatives as a comparison: Each side says certain things about the other. Each side says certain things about themselves. And each side makes certain stands and undertakes certain endeavors. All three of these processes disagree with one another. The argument about what the other does is generally inaccurate for being incredibly simplistic. The argument about the self is generally inaccurate for being a sales pitch. And what they actually do gets muddled up in all those other interpretations, and rarely stands or falls completely on its own merit. In the long run, it is easier to cling to the myths about the other, as it gives the one some sense of justification. If the Democrats really are the horrible liberals, if the journalists really are in some sinister liberal conspiracy, if the conservative depiction is accurate, then it warrants according to some specific construct a form of justification for their own behavior. Joe Scarborough used to regularly provide examples of this; he would denounce the liberal media, then talk about himself as a "center-right" journalist. Well, guess what, Joe? You're either a journalist or not. And if "center-right" is that important to you, you're not a journalist. In other words, he uses the spectre of an insupportable assertion of conspiratorial bias to justify his own propaganda ambitions.

What this comes down to is the idea that we let other people—whom we do not trust in the first place—to set definitions. Acknowledging those definitions is one thing; it is essential to explaining why they are wrong. But clinging to them? Allowing them validity? This is a rhetorical trick subtle enough to defy itself. I recently gave one of our atheist neighbors some shit about letting others set the definitions. And that, too, is a good example. Most atheists I know reject Abramic gods, and apply that rejection to other assertions of deity even if the characteristics are different. In other words, they allow the object of their distrust—e.g., Christians—to define God for everyone else.

Looking to Ancientregime, and credibly considering your presumption of his motives, there is the appearance of something similar going on. Rather than making "them" demonstrate the validity of the oxytocin=sex proposition, he is accepting the definition and demanding people disprove it. Yet, and we'll come back to this in a minute, he's also viciously rejecting the counterpoints.

I'm of the opinion that presuming a specifically-framed, specifically-lit, specifically-composed photograph of a naked child on a glass table to be pornographic—while I disagree with that presumption—has greater merit than presuming a photograph of a breastfeeding child is pornographic.

If those pictures fount their way to the internet, there's not a jury of peers in the land that would convict my parents for having taken them. The person who would be convicted would likely be whoever stole and posted the pictures.

(End response #1.)

Indeed. But it's only a matter of terminology. It would be funny listening to these religious people make the point and then deny what they said if there wasn't so much at stake.

And, yes, I'm referring to original sin. Whether or not we agree with it, the principle affects our lives.

The one and the other ... "To the one" is an older way of saying "On the one hand". I prefer it for rhythm. Thus, We can go into detail if needed, but on the one hand ... while on the other ....

I will say that the pornographic connotation of tight jeans has to do with the contrasts. The light sections are meant to set off the dark. The dark creates a bikini or cutoff look around the hips, buttocks, and groin of the woman; the light sections draw the eye and lead to the dark. Regardless of the original intent, the look has certain attractive value in a specific subcategory of a paraphiliac pornographic classification.

Without certain knowledge, various behaviors simply provide pleasure, comfort, or security.

Were I to ask you when you first masturbated, your honest answer would most likely be incorrect, setting that event later than it really was by a number of years. That error would occur not because you are lying, but because the earlier events were never contextualized sexually.

And on that point I claim certain insight. It's awkward enough to hear in Psych 101, or whatever, about young children masturbating, but the reality generally isn't as subtle as a basic classroom overview of Freudian principles generally suggests.

In this case, wet nursing has existed in cultures in a form that may or may not be construed as sexual to the nurse, but has no such context to the child, extending well beyond infancy. And, yes, such behavior might (does) have an effect on later psychological development and reconciliation, but that was never the reason for curtailing the practice.

But in its moment, this behavior was not overtly sexual.

(End response #2.)

But it wasn't just James R. After the point was on the table, it came up repeatedly—

• James R, #8
• Bells, #13
• Laladopi, #19
• Visceral Instinct, #36 (affirmation of #8)
• James R, #39 (reminder)​

—and it's not like Ancientregime completely failed to respond (see #43); but it is the case that the response manages to completely avoid the point that one common component does not make two things, events, or actions similar. James makes that latter point in #44. Bells addresses the implications in #45. Swarm makes a relevant point in #72, the "unfounded premise of similarity", which Ancientregime almost exactly fails to address by reiterating the thesis instead of answering the question about the thesis. Vslayer makes the point again in #76. Indeed, Scott, you asked after the point in #78. Ancientregime did hedge toward the point in #81, but that slight movement is later canceled. Bells in #82. Ancientregime seemingly making some progress in #83 (again, that progress is offset later); and #84 is a curious post that suggests some deeper issue on his part, possibly including some aspect of my own wandering speculation later in the thread. And in #85, Ancientregime suggests Bells is a child molester, leading to a digression about sexual grooming and, again, deflecting the issue as one purported by nutcases. (Not that those pushing the issue aren't psychologically unbalanced at least, but the deflection is compelling, as well, in the context of allowing other people to set the definition.) Vslayer addresses in #87 the hedging toward the point. Ancientregime pushes a strange confusion of states of arousal in #101. James R reiterates his point in #109. About this time our own discussion begins, (#111, 117). Bells replied to one of your posts with #121, and states the case admirably:

To Ancientregime's credit, Bells fails to consider the possibility that this is one of the most colossal communication failures ever witnessed, but even as such we're back to wondering how and why that failure occurred.

By this time, Ancientregime is becoming openly hostile: he deflects the principle onto wackos, makes a "public note" of Bells' "argument technique", suggests she isn't clever, and touts his own cleverness. And then he finally dismisses James' longstanding argument as "unclever". And tells Lucifer's Angel that she needs to learn how to read and calls Bells lazy. Which brings us up to my speculative psychological inquiry.

All of that has to do with the erroneous operating presupposition that one common component makes two things, events, or actions similar.

That's why I find him unyielding.

In bulletin board culture, the basic processes of Ancientregime's behavior are widely familiar. But this is something of an unusual case for its extremity. That extremity raises the psychological questions. Why is this so blindingly important? Presuming the best of intentions, we might wonder at the the determined, even ferocious insistence on a clearly failing communicative approach. If it's that important according to the benevolent presuppositions, he should have shifted gears long ago, back in the forties or eighties when he came off-rhythm in such a manner as to suggest progress. But, in the end, that progress is nullified; he considers the direction he needs to go with this inquiry (according to benevolent presuppositions) unclever. That is, he's too smart to actually go in the direction he needs to go.

I see that aspect, too. But it doesn't strike me the same way his insistence on insupportable propositions of similarity. For lack of a better phrase, he's just not as into that point as he is the wacko, nutcase definition.

Holding with your proposition of noble intent, I find it a fascinating question as to why he prefers to grant the strange outlook such credibility.

I'm actually not as confident on that count. Not that it particularly worries me, but between defense lawyers demanding exacting interpretations of law and principle and the ongoing societal shift toward a restricted but "fulfilling" definition of freedom, it does seem possible that we could, at some point, become so ridiculous. It's a long way off, and requires catastrophic precursors, but it's not entirely impossible.

Perhaps more important than why a chemical is released at any given time is what it does. Imagine feeling an urge to orgasm but not being able to get close to your lover. Eventually, one will either masturbate for release or the situation will turn desperate—e.g. rape.

Given the body's other uses of oxytocin, I'd say its function is more about bonding and intimacy than the sex itself. It well could be the difference between being scared out of one's mind and actually enjoying being so close to another person.

(End response #3, carry over one sentence.)

As to that last, actually it does. We might differ about the context of the word similar. Regarding the larger point, it's just an attempt to illustrate that it takes a lot more than one or two common components to establish this kind of functional similarity.

I will defer to later consideration of that issue because it's just huge. I will, however, acknowledge and agree with the last sentence.

The cases we hear about most are usually dependent on the question of pornography. I mean, maybe the picture itself is nothing of worry to you or I, but how is it presented? Is it in a shoebox or photo album in your mother's attic? What if it's been posted to alt.binaries.pictures.erotic.children?

Therein lies the problem. Once the image is presented in an exploitative or sexual context, the question of pornography becomes inherent.

I mean, look at the nut jobs. Both the immigrant photography student I mentioned and the breastfeeding mother in this case were busted by photo lab employees. We cannot pretend that these are the only such pictures to come through processing labs. Not every lab technician sees such images as pornographic. Yet we never see headline, "Lab technician develops child nude, rightly decides it's not pornography". Or anything close to that. It's simply not news. Maybe a screaming front-page headline, "Three quarters of women not sexually assaulted!" People complain that there's not enough good news in the media, but even putting aside concerns about sensationalism, is it really news? Here's a headline you'll never see: "Things working well, approximately how it should be".

If we stop to celebrate the fact that X meets expectations, well, how many people will be raped, murdered, robbed, or otherwise while we pat ourselves on the back? A baseball lands three seats away from me, and I kind of regret I wasn't in position to intercept it. A bullet strikes three seats away from me? I'm glad a ten year-old kid caught the home run. I wouldn't be so happy to see him get shot. The bullet is far more relevant than my favorite baseball team occasionally actually doing its job.

It's the stake that I find fascinating. Something compels his method. It may simply be, as I noted, a colossal failure to communicate. Or it may be that he's somehow wrapped up in the issue and seeking either justification or an exit. Given my druthers, I'd prefer to help. But neither am I a professional in this regard.

I'm usually a bit cynical about the latter, but it's beside the point for now.

And perhaps our neighbor will clarify, so all this tragic misunderstanding can be cleared up.

Something about definitions of civility, but that also is beside the point. The proposition is strange, in and of itself, but incredulity turned to offense largely because of his insistence, and also the diversion of the burden of proof. This oxytocin=sex formula underlying the conflict is a very extraordinary assertion, and yet he determinedly assigns the burden of extraordinary proof elsewhere.

We might consider the following needs:

(1) Demonstration of the significance of this whacked sector of society making such claims. How many are there, really?

(2) Consideration of the context of oxytocin.

(3) Proof that the assigned context is valid, or at least arguable. As the conflict over similar components suggests, there isn't much for a prima facie argument in favor of the oxytocin=sex/breastfeeding-as-abuse proposition.​

In other words, that some basket case somewhere makes an assertion doesn't mean the assertion is valid or credible. The presumption of credibility underlying the conflict is simply not credible.

Yeah, they're difficult moments. There are a few paragraphs that go with that quote, but it gets massive if I throw them all together. The larger point of the digression that begins with recounting that episode is the point about guilt, its misplacement, and the expectation of differentiation. And it seems we have little to disagree about.

The purpose of marriage, for instance, seems to be the acquisition of in-laws. Or, stated more academically, the development of one's familial social network.

At least, that's how it used to be. By the twentieth century, all that was turned on its head.

Certainly, the nine-headed children argument has some value in the historical consideration, but it's also subordinate to broader social concerns. The more you cloister a family, the less significant it becomes in its social context.

But the broader consideration of the source of one's criteria for differentiation has to do with the possibility that this discussion is originally motivated by an internal conflict.

(End response #4.)

But why? That is, yes, we're all subject to being suspicious of certain among our neighbors, but this looks like a fixation. I mean, I'm convinced that the homophobes, for instance, are simply expressing sexuality through their own deep repression. (Really, even prudes like to express their sexuality.)

The overwhelming response against the prosecution suggests something about the marginal dimensions of this oxytocin=sex/breastfeeding-as-abuse crowd.

Think of phrenology. It's thoroughly discredited, as are those who really believe dark-skinned humans are evolutionarily inferior and sub-human. Now, there are more of those folks out there than I'm comfortable with—and, likely, more than those who believe oxytocin=sex—but they're not particularly influential. The racism I worry about is far more subtle. It's the racism that saw law enforcement focus its crack campaign against black communities when the vast majority of users were white. It's the racism that compels respectable people to lash out against suggestions of background or latent racism; it's as if they think history has no connection to the present. These people prefer to justify and excuse themselves instead of address the problem. And there's a hell of a lot more of them than there are Sandpoint Neo-Nazis and the like. Or homophobes. I wouldn't worry so much about the assertion that gay sex is equal to raping a dog or a child if it didn't keep coming up, and wasn't treated with the deference due respectability. But people are marching forward on an oppressive campaign against their fellow human beings, with fairly consistent results, based on idiotic superstitions.

The question has arisen; that is beyond doubt. But the credibility Ancientregime gives this anti-breastfeeding faction is grotesque in its disproportion. Sure, it's best to address stupidity before it gets out of hand, but in doing so we must be careful to not overstate the credibility of the stupid. Unfortunately, this overstatement is at the heart of Ancientregime's role in the discussion.

We see this sort of exaggeration taking place all the time. Watch the pundits on the 24/7 news channels. I mean, there was a debate about the fact that Barack Obama took his jacket off in the Oval Office, for heaven's sake. Compared to the economy, the wars, and even the president's trouble filling his cabinet, why did pundits spend days arguing over his goddamn jacket? Sure, there are partisans grasping after any opportunity to criticize a particular politician, but why give them any credibility?

To the other, I don't recall that anyone spent weeks on the issue, so that credibility seems to have evaporated pretty quickly. Still, though, it was pretty stupid.

I will make the point here that there is a strange coincidence between certain concerns about the reach of government and locales in which government becomes intrusive in certain contexts. For instance, Texas. I mean, the joke is to simply say, "Yeah, this is Texas, so what do you expect?"

But in conservative climes, where people worry about the government telling them that they can't be racist in the schools, or in hiring, they also seem to think that who you sleep with is the government's business. Indeed, up in Pennsylvania, it was this very assertion that caused a former U.S. Senator's name to become a profane word. Well, roundabout.

First-world societies are constantly struggling to overcome such conflicts. I would be much more worried about this sad tale as an example of government intrusion if prosecutors hadn't been able to recognize how badly they'd gotten it wrong, or if nobody at all stood up against the ludicrous injustice.

In the meantime, there are those who would say children should be allowed to manufacture, possess, and distribute child pornography simply because they're children. Oh, the intrusive government! Of course, solving this twenty-first century problem will require even more exacting, more detailed laws. Which equals more government.

In any case, it's a matter of proportion. The oxytocin argument is fairly obscure, and ought have no credibility whatsoever among reasonably-educated people. Still, if we pitch enough of a fit about it, the proposition gains credibility. Give any insanity a week on FOX News, and somehow it becomes credible.

(End response #5.)

In the meantime, in more realistic quarters, the Washington state legislature is considering a bill to officially protect public breastfeeding. The bill has moved through committee, and faces no serious opposition.
____________________

Notes:

Associated Press. "Washington bill to OK mothers' breast-feeding". The Olympian. February 6, 2009. http://www.theolympian.com/legislature/story/750440.html

Barnett, Erica C. "WA Breastfeeding Bill Moves Forward". Shakesville. February 13, 2009. http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2009/02/wa-breastfeeding-bill-moves-forward.html

 

What a monstrous reply. It's full of misconceptions and distortions, but would take too much time to break apart.

I'm going to make my concluding remarks and then be done with things.

Many people in this thread have continually denied that oxytocin is a sexual chemical based upon an argument that just because it's present doesn't make it sexual. The chemical is always present in sexual acitivity in human and animals. It is so neccessary to the sexual act, if it weren't there, the human race would not produce offspring. In order to get two people to conceive they first have to hunger for each others touch. Oxytocin is also neccessary the process that creates penile erections (I'm not sure about clitorial blood flow), although does not directly create them by itself.

Due to the fact oxytocin is neccessary for sexual acts to occur, creates sexual arousal, and is present in the act of breasfeeding, breastfeeding fits in the category of sexual behavior. The fact that breastfeeding is primarily not done for sexual stimulation does not dimish this fact. From a Darwinian perspective, sexual stimulation during breasfeeding increases the likihood offspring is nurished.

The same kinds of sexual chemicals are release during hugs and playfullness between parent and child.

It's not incest in my eyes. Incest would require an act that creates offspring. Becaue the nature of why incest is wrong is based upon human deformity in offsrping, not on sexual chemicals being present in human activity.

 

so if a father made his little girl perform oral sex on him, its not incest since a child cannot be produced this way? :shrug: