Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by ancientregime, Feb 2, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,985
    :bugeye:

    Okay. I am trying to actually wrap my brain around this.

    Where does it say that hugging one's child or providing comfort and positive contact with one's child or any child, is tantamount to pedophilia? He is pushing the boundary to limits that are, for lack of a better term, insane.

    What he has basically been pushing in this thread is that any activity or behaviour that results in the release of Oxytocin automatically becomes sexual because Oxytocin is released during sex. So if a parent hugs a child and Oxytocin is released in the body of either parties to the hug, it suddenly becomes sexual contact. If a woman breastfeed and Oxytocin is released, it is automatically sexual and ergo, incest. And then, to make matter worse, he comes out with insane statements that a parent hugging their children can be seen as being sexual predators who are grooming a child for sex.

    I'm sorry, while he may say that some may take it that far, he is basically the first person I have ever come across who has taken it that far. And believe me, I've met some weirdos in the past who have come out with crazy stuff and done horrible and stupid stuff. But he is the first person I have ever seen who stated that hugging one's own child can be construed as 'grooming' as a pedophile grooms his/her potential victim.

    Now, he either believes this and keeps on pushing the point. Or he is attempting to inflame members who will take offense to such comments. Why belabour the point? Does he believe that breastfeeding is incest because of the release of Oxytocin? Does he think it should be taken that far? What is his motive in this thread? Is there something else he is trying to convey?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    I was a bit taken aback by this when I first heard about it. I know women donate breast milk to hospitals, but I never considered actually nursing another woman's child.


    Salma Hayek was so taken aback by the plight of an African woman in Sierra Leone who was unable to breastfeed her child that the star breastfed the newborn herself.

    The incident was captured on camera by a television crew from Nightline whom Hayek allowed accompany her on the goodwill trip in September....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    The general approach is always simple, because it's general.

    To be a bit more specific, one must understand the philosophy of a law. A law prohibits a behavior that hurts a second party directly or indirectly. A law that proves that behavior is harmfull is objectively based, scientific. A law that does not prove that behavior to be harmfull is faith-based, personal prefence based, culturally induced.

    Using this reasoning the definition of incest (which implies abnormal psychology and a criminal act) will change. Breastfeeding, under a scientific law, could never be made illegal because no harm can be proven to come of the participants of the act.

    I'm a proponent of letting nature decide the laws vs. imposing a faith based, belief system on our societal laws.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
  8. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    Nope, don't be fooled. Not just adults. The basis of their argument doesn't rely who is doing the suckling, instead it is based upon the fact that the suckling is erotic. As far as they are concerned the mental disorder could exist if a woman were letting a bonobo suck her milk or sucking herself off.
     
  9. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    Still can't be straighforward? Just come out with it.
     
  10. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    I didn't say that. Don't try to paint a picture of me saying that without be intellectually remanded. You are wrong. You are not reasoning.

    I didn't create the definitions the wacko's created. Don't try and stick it on me. Don't blame the messanger.

    They are the ones who have defined normal behavior as suspisious behavior of pedophiles, not me.

    I will make public note a tendecy of your agrument technique. When I have pointed out a person who has an extremist position, such as calling breastfeeding incest, you have have made attempts to make it seem like I am the extremist. In the next paragraph I will point out your unclever technique.

    You are technique is based upon association, not logic. For example, you just associate me with a negative idea vs. using deduction. Those clever enough to see it already know you are wrong and not making a valid argument. Those opened minded enough to learn something will eventually see you are only attempting to condition people by Pavlovian association rather than using scientific deduction.

    i.e. (negative idea) with a statment associating me with negative idea like "is that what you are trying to say?"

    Keep it up, I'm ready to hone my skills at demonstrating how clever I am, and you unclever you are not.
     
  11. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    Argument distortion. Let me clear up this unclever argument above. I claim oxytocin is a sexual. A behavior like running may have sexual chemicals present. Sorry, this doesn't mean I imply running is sex, like you just are damnded sure I must be implying. But, due to the mere presence of the chemicals I would say running is sexual. Again, intercourse isn't neccessary for a behavior to have sexual properties.
     
  12. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    YOU ARE WRONG. I NEVER SAID THAT. I said, the nutcases are saying that.

    You need to learn how to read more carefully before shooting off your mouth with claims that do not logically follow from what I stated.
     
  13. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,817
    what nutcases are saying this???? :shrug:
    Is there a web site? A magazine article?
     
  14. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    I think you better go back and read the opening I made. I am against those who view breast feeding as incest. I have already made it very clear I don't think playfull touching of your own offspring is pedophilic grooming. I have made it very clear that there exists people who feel this stuff is incest or sexual perversion.

    What you have made very clear is you don't take my statments logically and think I am promoting this sick kind of mindset. Distorting my argument then claiming I said or imply what you distort and then folloing up with an emotional tempertantrum is not a good argument, is outright being lazy. Stop trying to distort, read too far into things, and take things for exactly what they state.
     
  15. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    What? I already gave you the link the first time I responded to this question. :m:
     
  16. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    35,891
    Notes, particular and general

    Okay, but why? And why reach so far for an example? Ten years ago, there was the case of an immigrant who was taking a photography course. He took a nude photograph of his daughter on a glass table, allegedly at her prompting. Were she an adult, we would consider the image artistic, but she was a minor, so it was regarded as pornographic. To the child, according to the defense, there was nothing sexual about it. To the prosecution, the mere fact of her nudity made it sexual. The daughter was of single-digit age.

    That case definitely walks the line. When my brother and I were little, we used to play a streaking game before bathtime. We thought it was hilarious: we would run around the house naked and our dad would try to smack us with a rolled-up newspaper. Yeah, seriously. And I'm damn sure there are polaroids of this. I defy anyone to raid my mother's house, find those old pictures, and charge her with possession of child pornography. It would be absolutely ridiculous. And yet it's leagues closer to the line than the breastfeeding argument.

    What strikes me as curious in this discussion is that the example occurs so far beyond the territory of the sexual.

    I would agree that it doesn't just apply to breastfeeding. I would ask people to consider the extent to which people are taught to be ashamed of their bodies. Mandating an association between shame and fundamental existence has long been a task for religion. It should not be law.

    The thing with women's jeans goes much, much farther than that. And it's not the white or bleached-out part of the jeans, but the patterns of dark color. We can go into the detail if needed, but to the one, it should suffice to say that there is a specialized subset of internet pornography obsessed with that sort of thing, and to the other we might recognize that it points back to a fundamental question of why.

    There is an argument to be had that allowing a child to suckle when not lactating is not sexual, but it also suggests, in Freudian terms, an oral-stage fixation that becomes more and more problematic with each manifestation. That is, one might argue that it isn't sexual, but the argument that it isn't harmful to the child is considerably more difficult.

    • • •​

    Returning to post #99, the question, as I've noted, is why.

    We might also consider a couple of other posts. Bells, at #108 inquires after Ancientregime's reference to child grooming, and our topic poster's response, at #127 is particularly sharp:

    Indeed, the whole post goes on like that. Ancientregime will make a public note. He is clever, Bells is not.

    Look, we get it. It's not really Ancientregime who says all this. He's just "the messenger". But why? Why is this so important? Why is he so unyielding?

    For instance, James R has addressed the problem with the oxytocin argument, yet it took over a week and a reminder before, 120 posts later, Ancientregime dismisses it as an unclever distortion.

    The problem with that dismissal is that it relies on an outlook in which virtually everything is sexual. And while that argument has certain philosophical merit—e.g., reproduction is the first calling of life—it encounters certain problems in practical application, namely that such a uniform assignation renders human function dysfunctional.

    Thus, to borrow a phrase, welcome to the world of Wikipedia:

    Oxytocin (IPA: /ˌɔk.sɪ.ˈtoʊ.sɪn/) (Greek, "quick birth") is a mammalian hormone that also acts as a neurotransmitter in the brain.

    It is best known for its roles in female reproduction: it is released in large amounts after distension of the cervix and vagina during labor, and after stimulation of the nipples, facilitating birth and breastfeeding, respectively. Recent studies have begun to investigate oxytocin's role in various behaviors, including social recognition, bonding, anxiety, trust, and maternal behaviors.
    ("Oxytocin")

    • • •​

    The Oxytocin receptor (OXTR) functions as an inducer of uterine contractions and milk ejection. Oxytocin receptors are expressed by the myoepithelial cells of the mammary gland, and in both the myometrium and endometrium of the uterus at the end of pregnancy. In some mammals, oxytocin receptors are also found in the kidney and heart ....

    .... The oxytocin receptor is also widespread throughout the central nervous system and modulates a variety of behaviors. These include responses to stress and anxiety, social memory and recognition, sexual and aggressive behaviors, bonding (affiliation) and maternal behavior.
    ("Oxytocin receptor")

    According to the purported logic of the breastfeeding/incest argument pertaining to oxytocin, natural childbirth should be banned, as it involves a vagina, oxytocin, and a baby. (My God! It's just a baby! Won't someone please think of the babies!)

    Aggressive behaviors? Who's ever been in a fight with someone of their own sex? Are you a gay rapist, then? Social memory and recognition? Stress and anxiety? Aside from providing a chemical basis for Freudian presuppositions—anxiety as a sign of libido, for instance, or the whole Oedipal thing—how are these things sexual?

    Consider this, please: My wristwatch has gears. And while it's rather quite difficult to find someone in my immediate circle who drives a manual-shift automobile, well, that car has similar gears. Yet I promise you that my wristwatch is not an Eagle Talon. It's not any kind of car.

    And let's use that car analogy for a moment. It's probably been a decade now, but Porsche took heat at one point from critics and fans alike when it started using similar parts—in this case, headlight fixtures—in two separate models (911 and Boxster). For the car lovers, it was a betrayal. For Porsche, it was a matter of practicality.

    Likewise, the diversity of life includes many overlaps. Something like 98% of our DNA is common to certain primates. Does that make us bonobos?

    The common point here is that the presence of a simple component in two systems does not make the systems similar.

    Thus, social recognition. It involves the identification of mates, friends, enemies, and status within hierarchies, at least. Are all of these overtly sexual behaviors? No, not even for the Freudian. That oxytocin is a key component in mammalian social recognition does not mean that social recognition is a sexual function.

    The broader problem people seem to be experiencing, then, is the perception of discord between Ancientregime's ferocious self-defense and his insistent advocacy of the point. Yes, we understand. It's not Ancientregime. It's the nutcases. But with diverse arguments put forth as a counterpoint, Ancientregime continues to paint himself into a corner, and after so many posts and increasing hostility, should we be surprised that people are, for lack of a better term, cutting to the chase?

    Thus, so that we don't get hung up on anonymous social workers of someone else's acquaintance calling our topic poster an idiot, let us consider what it looks like.

    It looks like guilt.

    It looks like a psyche in conflict.

    It looks like a fictitious or theoretic projection implemented to shield the self from that conflict.

    The possibilities are numerous. Indeed, the most obvious—that Ancientregime stands accused of inappropriate conduct toward children—is actually the least likely. Were that accusation formal and legal, his lawyer would throttle him for this stunt.

    Still, it could be a self-accusation. Or a social accusation without any legal force. And it could also very likely be that someone of his close association, for whom he otherwise feels a degree of admiration, stands accused.

    There is a basic appearance of projection about the proposition. This projection is fairly common. Indeed, nearly every male I know has experienced it in some form; it is a means for exploring ideas otherwise considered anathema. In my own life, I recall it coming up in considerations of masturbation, homosexuality, and transvestism. The average teenager, in my day, would not openly confess to any of these; and yet the psyche persists. So we create removed theoretical considerations.

    It is the persistence, though, that suggests a stake beyond the merely academic. And, in the present issue, that stake is still hidden from the general audience. Given the belligerent, but otherwise insubstantial, defense of the proposition, there is a natural tendency for the audience to suspect or presume that the hidden stake is, in fact, sinister.

    And this is what I find fascinating about this otherwise morbid discussion. What is so important about this point that our topic poster is so insistent? And what is so grievous about the stake that it must remain hidden?

    The thing is that the grievous stakes are not always so heavy. Rather than indicting our topic poster, the whole situation may simply speak to an internal conflict.

    I remember a truly awkward episode in which my mother discovered me, at eleven years old, looking through the lingerie section of a department store catalog. Hell, she probably doesn't even remember it these days, but I'm not going to ask her. To her credit, she tried to normalize the moment, pointing out that I don't have any sisters, and it was natural that I would be curious about certain things.

    And perhaps that sounds more than a little creepy, but to a certain extent it's true. To propose an answer to a question I asked earlier, what makes watching someone go to the bathroom a sexual experience? The nearest I can figure is an association between the verboten and the sexual. That is, I can remember trying to peek in on my cousins while they were in the bathroom when I was maybe seven years old. It wasn't that my brother or I were trying to see the girls urinating, but that we were trying to catch a glimpse of forbidden realms, the "peachy private place" as we conspiratorially called it.

    All the guilt came years later, when I came face to face with the psychological and social impacts of incest. But that guilt was misplaced; one cannot expect differentiation where none was asserted. Perhaps other people learned from preacher and parent to not look at their relations for stimulation, but there are others who pick it up somewhere along the way. And, of course, there are some who have lifelong trouble establishing that differentiation.

    The point being that some people carry heavy burdens of guilt and self-indictment that need not be. One need not imagine our neighbor Ancientregime a pedophile. Perhaps in his own life, he saw his mother or an aunt breastfeeding an infant, and like other young children who have not established familial differentiation in sexuality or proto-sexuality, experienced some sort of stimulation. There are many reasons why something like this might create a psychological conflict later in life.

    And this discussion could be part of an internal struggle to resolve that conflict.

    There are, in fact, myriad possibilities. Indeed, I would encourage those who are frustrated with Ancientregime's truculent insistence to attempt to view him sympathetically; it may be that he is caught up in a conflict others have long since resolved. And in this we cannot conclude stupidity; that would be the easy and self-righteously satisfying route. Would we have it said of us that we could have helped someone, but instead pushed them away for our own gratification?

    To the other, though, I think it would be helpful if that stake was on the table. Ancientregime must be, at some level, aware that the personal degree to which he has invested himself in this topic only draws attention to himself. The disclaimers begin to ring hollow in the logical void.

    If anything makes breastfeeding sexual, it is a conscious recognition on the part of the individual. One might as well wonder if urination is sexual? After all, for men it involves a penis, the discharge of sperm, and it can feel really good. (What? Drink in taverns enough and you'll eventually hear someone make the point.) And, of course, one can certainly make urination part of a sexual act, just as one can make suckling a breast a sexual act. Still, though, the action in and of itself serves a different purpose entirely, and one must recognize and affirm the sexual value of the action.

    But standing in the stink of a tavern men's room, pissing into a trough filled with ice, generally doesn't ring among men as a sexual act. Given a choice, it's hard to see how even a significant minority of men would prefer to seek sexual gratification from a urinal instead of another person.

    (As to women, urination and sexual gratification is beyond my realm of knowledge, although I will say that, while I have encountered women who will urinate during the course of a sexual encounter, I have never encountered a woman who claims to have had an orgasm in doing so. Of course, I don't expect that to be a leading topic of conversation, either. Still, though, the female urinary orgasm seems largely mythical, the badly-writ fantasies of desperate men, else it would be more common.)

    There are plenty of mundane things that people will consider sexual if given the chance. I'm not a particular fan of costume-play, so I don't understand the attraction to nurse's outfits, but given the topic argument, we might as well make a blanket accusation that all female nurses are sexually harassing their male patients simply by dressing for work. And what the hell is the thing with men who like to be dressed up in knickers and spanked with a belt or cane while calling their mistress "Mommy"? Really, what the hell? Whose mother dressed you up in knickers before spanking you? (Oh, wait. We're back to the Freudian again. Never mind.)

    So, yes. I'm fascinated by this morbid spectacle. Not because the proposition itself is intriguing; I reject it categorically. But I do see a particularly engaging psychological struggle taking place that may or may not have anything to do with the actual act (breastfeeding) in question.

    And as someone who has spent a lot of hours on the psychologist's couch, and whose sexuality still hides in the closet in regards to a small but vital portion of my living associations, go ahead and say that it takes one to know one. I'm not a mental health professional, so I can't offer to do the counseling. But I do recognize a conscience in conflict. Whether that conflict is primary or secondary, a proximal or distal expression of itself, cannot be determined from the information available. But there's something going on here; the patterns are almost too clear.

    And maybe there is nobody here that can help resolve the conflict. But at present, it seems Ancientregime is only adding to his own burden, becoming increasingly frustrated with people's growing distrust of his motive.

    And so I still wonder: Behind the veils, beneath the question, what is that seed? Whence comes this confusion?

    On a day so long ago, now no one can remember,
    Theres a change, this too will pass and vanish in the haze.
    This is moving too far under the skin of your sight.
    Ocean of confusion took me back to the end of the night.


    —Screaming Trees
    ____________________

    Notes:

    "Oxytocin". Wikipedia. Accessed February 11, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin

    "Oxytocin receptor". Wikipedia. Accessed February 11, 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin_receptor

    Neergaard, Lauran. "Researchers Rethink Origin of Human Mind". Associated Press. May 10, 1998. http://www.primatesworld.com/HumanMind.html

    Heffner, Christopher L. "Personality Development". Psychology 101. AllPsych Online. Accessed February 11, 2009. http://allpsych.com/psychology101/defenses.html
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    thankfully thare is a screen seperating me from these...THESE...people.
     
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    32,964
    In other words, if any activity involves the release of any of the same hormones that are released during sex, then you regard that activity as inherently sexual.

    This is broadening the definition of sexual activities to include just about every human activity.

    Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, you know.
     
  19. Bells Staff Member

    Messages:
    22,985
    I won't bother pointing out the irony or this little rant.

    Who are the "wacko's"? What "wacko's" are saying that all parental contact is 'child grooming'.

    Who are you a messenger for? Why are you a messenger?

    My point is that you have taken a definition and driven it to its most and absolute and down right ridiculous extreme.

    And yours is based on logic?

    Yes, I can see how it is logical to say that breastfeeding could be construed as being incest, and hugging and playing with one's children can be viewed as being 'child grooming' for sex.

    I don't know about anyone else participating in this thread, but frankly, whatever you are trying to get across is confused and angry. You are trying to push this message that if we breastfeed or are affectionate to our children, that "wacko's" will label us as being pedophiles. Well I breastfed both my children, hug them constantly at home and in public and I have never been labeled a pedophile, nor have I been accused of grooming a child for sex.

    What is this valid argument that you are trying to make? Oxytocin is not just about sex. You also sweat when having sex. Does that mean that if you sweat while hugging your child or breastfeeding, it automatically becomes sexual? What you are arguing is, to put it bluntly, insane. Are you going to say that the "wacko's" are saying that any sense of happiness which can release Oxytocin automatically makes it sexual and therefore wrong? Childbirth gives the biggest release of Oxytocin. And as Tiassa pointed out before, does that mean we should not allow natural childbirth because some so called "wackos" might construe it as being incestuous because of the hormone and.. or dear lord.. a vagina is involved?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    You are so clever that in trying to say that I am "unclever", you just said that I am not "unclever".

    /Chuckle..

    Then why push the point with people who do not view breastfeeding as being incest and who find the notion of hugging a child being viewed as "child grooming" to be insane? Why are you constantly trying to force these notions down our throats while saying 'you agree with us that it's stupid but this is what "they" are saying'.. without telling us who the "wacko's" are or why you feel the distinct need to be this self styled messenger of all things sexual and hormonal?

    You made your point. Why keep pushing it over and over again, to people who agree that it is wrong to sexualise what is absolutely natural and essential to a child (eg breastfeeding, touching and hugging the child, etc)?

    No. What is clear is that you are gormless.

    How exactly can one take statements logically when you have presented them in the most illogical fashion? You aren't arguing that the "wacko's" who are apparently saying that it's bad to hug your child or breastfeed a child are bad. You are pushing their point on us and when we balk, you balk back and say 'well it's not me saying that.. it's them'..

    As for distorting your arguments. You have presented them in a manner that is not only confusing whatever message you are apparently trying to convey and you have worded them in a manner that is accusatory. And we are around 134 posts in a thread where you are apparently agreeing with us that "wacko's" who apparently say that breastfeeding and hugging a child is incest, by arguing with everyone about why it's bad and then trying to claim that you are some sort of "messenger".
     
  20. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220
    Sure, any activities having sexual chemicals present could be considered sexual stimulation. I don't think this is a problem. But, mixing the present vague definitions of a law surrounding "sexual contact" with knowledge of sexual chemicals included, behaviour not recoginized as rape or molestation can be construed as rape or molestation. I see this an opportunity for extremists. Extermism has occurred in history and in the present age. I am for prevention of this. I think the solution is to reword the law so it doesn't allow such broad interpretation.
     
    Last edited: Feb 12, 2009
  21. ancientregime Banned Banned

    Messages:
    220

    Who are the wacko's? This is the third time I've addressed this. If you really care about this discussion I've already pointed that out. I have been respectfull and gave you a direct answer to that question, but you continue to repeatedly ask it. Is there a problem with the first answer?

    When we can discuss one thing logically together, I will glady deal with each worm you are attempting to let loose in your long winded reply.
     
  22. scott3x Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,785
    If you are talking about the type of extremism outlined in Judith Levine's "Harmful to Minors", I agree. In terms of a broad solution, I think people should focus less on whether there's a chemical reaction and/or a power imbalance and instead focus on whether the parties involved benefitted or were harmed.
     
  23. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,913
    About a hundred people have said this already, but:

    Oxytocin is a bonding hormone, NOT a sex hormone.

    Obviously you bond with someone when having sex. It doesn't logically follow that any form of bonding must be sexual.

    I'm sure you produce oxytocin when with a group of friends. Would you call that experience sexual?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page