Verified by 
90COMMENTS
I wonder just how valid this is? All women do not get aroused from breast stimulation because I don't. In fact I find it irritating and actually get turned off if my breasts, specifically nipples are touched. I'm really not sure why I am this way. I wonder if other women are like this too?
If men have sex on the brain, they are not alone. Recent research found that women’s sensory cortex has three distinct areas corresponding to the stimulation of the clitoris, vagina, and cervix (1). To their surprise, researchers found that self-stimulation of the nipples lights up the same areas. This sheds further light on the sexual importance of breasts.
In an earlier post, I discussed some evolutionary reasons for men's fascination in women’s breasts and pointed out that stimulation of the breast plays a key role in women’s sexual arousal and satisfaction.
The Background
The permanently enlarged human breast is a peculiarity of our species (2). It may have some signaling value in communicating fertility and plays a role in physical attractiveness.
Breasts are less eroticized in subsistence societies where women go topless than in our own— where they are exploited in advertising, and in pornography. Even in subsistence societies, breasts are not entirely lacking in sexual significance and are generally stimulated in foreplay according to ethnographic accounts (3).
Moreover, the breasts play a key role in female sexual arousal and we are beginning to understand why in terms of hormones and neuroscience. In their classic report on the female sexual response, Masters and Johnson (4) pointed out that breast volume increases during sexual arousal in addition to changes in the areola and erection of the nipples.
The breast and bonding
The function of the breast in sexual behavior is sometimes attributed to face-to-face copulation that is unusual among mammals. If the breast is already used for mother-infant bonding, the argument goes, then it is a small step for it to be used in facilitating bonding between lovers. After all, it is in easy reach.
The stimulation of the nipple during breastfeeding increases the amount of the hormone oxytocin that circulates. Oxytocin is often referred to as the “cuddling hormone” because it is released by male and female mammals during close social encounters of various kinds (5).
In addition to its general social effects, whereby a mother feels closeness for the baby she is feeding (and vice versa), there are other more specialized functions of oxytocin. One is that milk flows, a reflex known as the “milk let-down response” familiar to mothers and dairy farmers alike.
Another is sexual arousal and orgasm. Some women experiencing intense pleasure, even orgasm, from breastfeeding. This phenomenon was long written off as a mere oddity but neuroscientists are beginning to understand why it happens.
Sexual wiring of women’s brains
The great complexity of the female sexual response may be attributable to the fact that there is not one, but three sensory maps in the parietal cortex that light up in functional MRI images when the genitals are (self) stimulated. One represents the clitoris, another the vagina and the third represents the cervix.
All three of these maps also receive input when the nipple is stimulated. From a functional perspective, this means that the breast doubles as a truly sexual organ. It is not just an exciting visual stimulus for (most) men but also a key source of sexual pleasure for most women. As to the wiring of men’s nipples the jury is out. Some men’s nipples are also responsive to sexual stimulation but the brain response has yet to be mapped.
References
1. Komisaruk, B. R., et al. (2011). Women’s clitoris, vagina, and cervix mapped on the sensory cortex: fMRI evidence. The Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8, 2822-2830.
2. Barber, N. (1995). The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness: Sexual selection and human morphology. Ethology and Sociobiology, 16, 395-424.
3. Ford, C. S., & Beach, F. A. (1951). Patterns of sexual behavior. New York: Harper.
4. Masters, W. H., & Johnson, V. E. (1966). Human sexual response. Boston: Little Brown.
5. Uvnas-Moberg, K. (1998). Oxytocin may mediate the benefits of positive social interaction and emotions. Psychoneuroendocrinology 23: 819-835.
Many other women are the same
Submitted by Simon Says on May 15, 2013 - 4:24pm
Many other women are the same and it depends a lot on developmental experiences. Some women's brains simply get wired to experience fear from breast arousal. Breast arousal actually stimulates the amygdala in to a fear response and this triggers the HPA Axis in to activity creating the physiological experience of irritation and annoyance.
I would like to see a female doctors view on this.
Submitted by Doesn't matter on April 19, 2018 - 9:41am
How the hell is a female breast a "sexual" object if they can't have sex or reproduce with this organ?
Also, if female breast were linked to a fucking sexual organ then you're pretty much saying that breastfeeding is pedophilia which in fact it's not and the female is trying to feed her baby.
It's male "doctors" like you that make it okay to sexualize breast when it's not. Therefore, mothers can't breastfeed at all times.
What does a female doctor
Submitted by Anon on June 24, 2018 - 6:43pm
What does a female doctor have to do with this? You actually sound sexist yourself. What should have more weight? Your skewed, feminist views and personal feelings or hard scientific data?
Breasts are inherently sexual, no one "sexualized" them, because they always were sexual. Yes, breasts by nature are also practical, because they feed babies. Most women are discreet when they breastfeed in public, and cover themselves in some way for modesty. Pretty much no one objects to that. It's only when women have their entire breast exposed while breastfeeding, that's just trashy and unnecessary.
But the fact that breasts are practical doesn't change the other FACT that women's breasts ARE sexual body parts. Women's breasts are erogenous zones, they swell with sexual arousal (like sex organs do), and activate the same sexual pleasure zones in the brain (like genital stimulation does).
Sensitivity plays a key role in pleasure vs irritation
Submitted by PurpleTantrum on August 28, 2015 - 2:02am
Some women do not have much sensation in their nipples and experience neither sexual arousal or irritation from their stimulation. Sensitive nipples can cause a strong sexual response and tremendous arousal. Yet if a women's nipples are highly sensitive, she may feel an overstimulation of the nerves that registers as irritation or even pain.
It is quite possible that you have nerves that are closer to the surface of your skin, or there is some difference in the in how your brain processes the this nueral stimulous.
Other women's input
Submitted by Anonymous 1% on May 7, 2018 - 6:52pm
While I thought this was a silly article, I have extreme pleasure every time my breasts are so much as brushed against while I'm getting dressed or if I bump into someone. I am part of the apparent 1% of women who can cum from breast play alone. I love nipple clamps and find it difficult to cum without touching my breasts. I am not a mother, but I have been concerned with the thought another post said about breast feeding. Will that turn me on? Probably. But not like pedophelia. It would be like "ok, are you done eating so I can go tell your daddy he's getting lucky?"
I was told once that any stimulus is related to experience. You could cum from snapping your fingers if you trained your body by snapping your fingers every time you cum. One day all you have to do is snap your fingers. I think that's what happened with my breasts because I never used to be so sensitive. Now if I accidentally graze my breast while getting dressed... I want to have sex. Which sounds fun if you're a guy, but it actually sucks when I'm trying to get ready for work and accidentally got horny AF on my way to the office.
A woman's POV
Submitted by Hols on December 29, 2018 - 9:29am
Anonymous, if you're 1% then I'm number 2 8-) I love how several of responses are from men whose sexual history allows them to accurately count their knowledge of women's erogenous zones as many and most. The real issue here is the contents of the article, the author's credibility as an authority on this subject. Psychology Today is nothing more than a pop culture reference and should be taken as such. And men? Stop blathering about something you know nothing about.
The reason why most people
Submitted by Angie on May 11, 2020 - 10:11pm
The reason why most people are finding it difficult to get a bigger and Erect Penis is because they believe on medical report, drugs and medical treatment which is not helpful to Enlargement or erectile dysfunction . Natural roots/herbs are the best remedy which can easily Enlarge Penis and Last Longer on Bed. My Husband is a living Testimony to this process Robinson buckler helped my Husband with his Herbal Product which started to manifest within 3 weeks of use so i am writing his Contact for anyone who needs his Help, His Herbal treatment is 100% guarantee for Herpes, PENIS ENLARGEMENT, Erectile Dysfunction Email: Robinsonbucler {@ gmail }. com___________________
Why are the researchers
Submitted by Sarah on May 8, 2013 - 4:38am
Why are the researchers surprised? Not all women get aroused in the same way.
"It is not JUST an exciting
Submitted by Anonymous on May 8, 2013 - 1:08pm
"It is not JUST an exciting visual stimulus for (most) men but also a key source of sexual pleasure for most women."
You can tell its a man's world where women aren't even the primary reason behind their own exsistence.
If women were viewed as valid human beings this would have read as
"It is not JUST a key source of sexual pleasure for most women but also an exciting visual stimulus for (most) men."
women's own body parts aren't even seen as primarily for THEM!!
Until bullshit like this stops being said I'm going to wish for a world without men. And what a great world that would be.
Oh look!
Submitted by CW on August 11, 2014 - 9:15pm
Oh look!
Two angry frustrated feminists who claim they are perpetual victims of the patriarchy and who have nothing to contribute!
Go back to Jezzebel.
CW you come off like an
Submitted by AD on December 1, 2015 - 12:02am
CW you come off like an internet troll. I much prefer Phillip O's thought out response considering I had interpreted portions of this article much similarly as the original commenter. Moving on... Generally, it seems surprising in this period of time that this area of sexual knowledge is so...surprised that breasts play such a role in intimacy and sexual experience.
What, you thought boobs were
Submitted by Winslow Arizona on May 11, 2013 - 9:20am
What, you thought boobs were for women?? Don't be ridiculous. Boobs are for men, babies, the medical profession and the media. We just grow em and fret about them.
To Anonymous:
Submitted by Phillip Olejarz on May 17, 2013 - 10:32am
It was written that way because the first logical statement in the sentence, that [Breasts are] "an exciting visual stimulus for (most) men" is well established in multiple scientific publications (and Men are very vocal about this) with the second logical statement, that that [Breasts are] "a key source of sexual pleasure for most women" not so much.
The "It’s not just" was to bring the 'not so much' established logical statement into the foreground; a juxtaposition to our pre-conceived notions of breasts - 'that they are just there to visually stimulate men.'
I don't believe the author meant to offend anyone with that sentence, but in fact believe it was meant to show how much we don't know about the subject discussed and how much more study is needed to fully understand it.
Also, I think it was an attempt at humor, but some aren't laughing which will only compound the misinterpretation.
I was preparing a response to
Submitted by Oregon on August 19, 2015 - 8:54pm
I was preparing a response to the women who misunderstood and were angered by the way that was worded. Fortunately, I came by your response first. You explained it clearly and eloquently, ANYONE should be able to now understand the purpose behind the wording and the order in which it appeared. Thank You.
Here we go again
Submitted by Renée Pettersson on November 29, 2015 - 5:24pm
Here we go again, wasting energy on wrestling with political correctness, in which factuality and rationality are totally disregarded.
Wow this is 2013
Submitted by Anonymous on May 22, 2013 - 2:00am
This essay was not only sexist but racist with echoes of bygone era when scientific reports were colored with racism. What in the name of truth are we supposed to make of this sentence? "Even in subsistence societies, breasts are not entirely lacking in sexual significance and are generally stimulated in foreplay according to ethnographic accounts".Who are you referring to here? Non humans who lack elementary knowledge of sexual behavior?
What we're supposed to make
Submitted by Canof Sand on July 27, 2019 - 2:14am
What we're supposed to make of it is what it actually says. There's nothing remotely racist in that statement. Even if I put myself in the shoes of a race-baiter desperately trying to intentionally take things the wrong way, I can't figure out what's wrong with it -- but I guess this is because I'm too honest and too fluent in the English language.
I've seen a lot of ridiculous stretches from people of a certain political persuasion to try to paint their opponents as racist, and yours is among the most ridiculous. Not top ten, mind you, but it's awful.
9_9
Submitted by Anonymous on December 31, 2015 - 6:15pm
People read what they wanna read.
Maybe this makes more sense. We *already know* that breasts are exciting visual stimulus for (most) men. The amazing discovery revealed in this article dedicated TO the amazing discovery is that *surprise*... they are also, verifiably, a key source of sexual pleasure for most women.
Maybe you knew this, but science did not, and now it can be officially *added*... to what we already know to be proven true.
Wish away; I think they're lovely, sister.
Is this a joke??
Submitted by Del on May 18, 2014 - 7:35am
"Recent research found that women’s sensory cortex has three distinct areas corresponding to stimulation of the clitoris, vagina, and cervix (1). To their surprise, researchers found that self stimulation of the nipples lights up the same areas."
Seriously? Seriously!? They were *surprised*?? What, did they never talk about masturbation to women? Because A LOT of women could have told them that they start a masturbation session with stimulation of the nipples alone, in order to get the genitals aroused and going.
This is 2014! There should have been no "surprise" involved, only "confirmation". When there are women everywhere sharing how they can sometimes genitally orgasm from nipple stimulation alone, a direct overlap between the areas corresponding to stimulation of the clitoris, vagina and cervix, and those corresponding to the stimulation of the breasts/nipples should have been EXPECTED, almost a given.
The fact that apparently it wasn't baffles and irritates me. Seems like what women say about their own sexualities is less relevant than what a machine says. Ugh.
To whoever the hell made this:
Submitted by anonymous on May 18, 2014 - 12:11pm
I swear to god, this you're where that fucker got the idea that breasts are sexual organs. I want you to that I am going to say this as calm and collectively as I possibly can. I am going to murder you in your sleep and eat your children which I hope you'll never have because God help us all if your ignorance attempts to breed into our already screwed up next generation. You're probably one of the dicks who think that homosexuality is wrong but will gladly jerk off to two women fucking and have the audacity to say that it's not homosexual if it's two women. The worst thing I can wish upon you is life, I hope you live a long fucking time, long enough to see your spouse die just so you'll have to live alone for many many years. This whole article better be a fucking joke or I swear to god I will hunt you down and grab the fastest plane over to where you are, chop your dick off, boil it in water, cauterize the wound, and force you to eat your dick hot-dog style. Do you fucking understand me?
wow. you need to stop and
Submitted by Anonymous on May 18, 2014 - 12:21pm
wow. you need to stop and think about your choices in life.
Actually, she doesn't.
Submitted by No on May 19, 2014 - 10:34pm
Actually, she doesn't. Because it's bloody absurd that breasts are 'sexual organs' when in truth, these men need to do their fucking research.
Honestly, I'd help her in giving this guy what he deserves.
How is that absurd? Is it
Submitted by Kaenonymous on August 9, 2014 - 8:00am
How is that absurd? Is it absurd that breastfeeding stimulates the uterine contractions in a woman after she's given birth?
If not, then it should not be so absurd for you to understand that a uterus is a sexual organ as well. Now, how difficult is it for you to connect the breasts to OTHER reproductive organs? If it's still too much for you to handle, then it is probably due to the feminism you're toting.
I do not 'get' how you and so many of these other people come on here commenting like you've got something to prove because of your own SJW attitudes towards anything that doesn't fit in with your own personal agendas, and then bring absolutely nothing but accusations and slander to the table.
If you have something to prove, get to publishing your own research to show us how wrong "these men" have been. If you cannot then please, direct us to someone who can. Should said person not exist, then kindly zip your lips or sit on your hands... w/e works best to keep you from repeating this kind of garbage.
Except, if you've taken a
Submitted by Jenna Demmer on October 26, 2014 - 3:34pm
Except, if you've taken a biology or anatomy course, you'd know that THAT IS NOT WHAT A "SEX ORGAN" IS.
Biologically speaking, enlarged female breasts actually fall under the same sexual category as facial hair, not penises and vaginas. They are considered to be SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTICS, not sex organs. Facial hair is also a secondary sex characteristic.
I'll link to an online version of my Anatomy/Physiology textbook.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4idMNpe04qgC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=sex+organ+vs+secondary+sex+characteristics&source=bl&ots=jAg4DGeRDX&sig=NEc6zb0qKyzQ6e91Lhqj4bFzLNw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hz8nVPtFhPTIBO2agpgJ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=breasts&f=false pg 268-279, learn more about what differentiates sex organs & secondary sex characteristics. Description of boobs being classified as secondary sex characteristics on pg 279.
PRIMARY sex ORGANS: ORGANS THAT CONTAIN GAMETES. I.e. testicles and ovaries.
SECONDARY sex ORGANS: uterus, or organs that aid in transport of eggs/sperm to uterus. i.e. fallopian tubes, PENIS, vagina, etc.
SECONDARY sex CHARACTERISTICS: characteristics that differentiate males and females, but don’t have a DIRECT part in reproduction. Examples include enlarged breasts in females, enlarged muscles in men, adam’s apples, facial hair, etc. Learn more about the classification of boobs as secondary sex CHARACTERISTICS on p279.
I happen to believe a woman
Submitted by Rnarcz on December 23, 2015 - 4:21am
I happen to believe a woman should have the right to go topless at any given beach she's comfortable at without worrying about sexual arousal. And I don't think you need to be yelling at everyone who disagrees with you.
...not worry about sexual
Submitted by Brett on February 28, 2017 - 4:18pm
...not worry about sexual arousal...OK, you have the right not to worry, but if you mean the right for men not to be aroused sexually at the sight of your breasts, no, you cannot stop others reactions. I am in favor of your right to go topless though.
You're evil. Enough said.
Submitted by Anonymous on July 27, 2019 - 2:20am
You're evil. Enough said.
So you're defending a sicko
Submitted by Canof Sand on July 27, 2019 - 2:19am
So you're defending a sicko ranting about inflicting utterly disgusting depravity on people who DARE use science to contradict an anti-biology political ideology. We know all we need to know about you two.
(That was re: "No" and,
Submitted by Canof Sand on July 27, 2019 - 2:21am
(That was re: "No" and, indirectly, the sicko "anonymous.")
Wow...
Submitted by Gracie on February 28, 2017 - 3:52pm
Lady, you need to chill. It's really just simple proven science. Cold hard facts don't change just because you dont believe them to be true. There still fact. My opinion is constantly being changed, because of sound science, extensive study and research.Theyre the precursors and forunners of our modern day society. Its just common sense, just plain simple nuerological science. Irrefutible facts with evidence to prove it.
This is SO stupid
Submitted by Jade on May 18, 2014 - 2:17pm
The ONLY REASON breasts are OCCASIONALLY arousing for women is because stimulation induces LACTATION TO FEED BABIES. BREASTS ARE NOT SEXUAL ORGANS. THEY ARE NOT NEEDED FOR REPRODUCTION, JUST FEEDING INFANTS. The ONLY reason men are aroused by breasts is because, for whatever moronic reason, women aren't allowed to show them, so they seem naughty and forbidden. In cultures that women are more commonly topless, men hardly notice breasts. So, yeah, go fuck yourself. Your article is COMPLETELY sexist and idiotic. Breasts. Are. Not. Sexual. Organs.
Nope: what you said is stupid.
Submitted by Del on May 18, 2014 - 3:23pm
"breasts are OCCASIONALLY arousing for women"
Not occasionally. LOTS of women get aroused when their nipples are touched.
"stimulation induces LACTATION TO FEED BABIES"
This makes absolutely NO sense.
First, if that were true, then it would induce lactation ALL THE TIME, not just when a woman is a new mother. The mammary glands are swollen all the time after all, not just when the woman gets pregnant as in most other mammalian species, so why wouldn't stimulation always induce lactation?
Second, why would stimulation equal arousal? There is no need whatsoever for the lactation stimulation to induce sexual arousal. In fact, many women who experience arousal during lactation don't like it, because they don't want to associate sex with their baby. So it's not necessary, and it's often unwanted, so why would it exist in the first place?
Third and most importantly, as far as species survival goes, lactation is the EXACT time when you do NOT want a woman to get sexually aroused! A new mother must remain focused on her baby at all times if the infant is to survive. The very last thing you want her to be is distracted by some need to have sex with a man. In fact, in many mammalian species, the new mothers are literally unable to go into a new reproductive cycle until their young are weaned - with the result that a male which would want to mate with a new mother will not hesitate to kill her young in order to induce her into having sex again. So yeah, Nature knows that young mothers have better stay away from males, because big horny males and tiny helpless infants don't mix well.
And finally:
"BREASTS ARE NOT SEXUAL ORGANS. THEY ARE NOT NEEDED FOR REPRODUCTION"
Go tell that to the millions of women who NEED nipple stimulation before they can tolerate - let alone find pleasure in - being touched anywhere around their genitals. Loads and loads and LOADS of women NEED to have their breasts fondled in order to start lubricating, and find ANY touching of the clitoris, the vagina or anything else around there PAINFUL without that nipple-induced lubrication.
Mind you, it's true that technically speaking, a woman doesn't need to be lubricated or find any pleasure in sex in order to reproduce. But I'm of the school of thought that no woman should ever have to put up with unpleasant sex, not even for the sake of reproduction, so if breast stimulation is necessary for a woman to get lubricated and aroused, then yeah, her breasts are sexual organs for her - and you don't get to tell her otherwise.
lost in translation
Submitted by Anonymous on May 19, 2014 - 3:49am
Second, why would stimulation equal arousal? There is no need whatsoever for the lactation stimulation to induce sexual arousal. In fact, many women who experience arousal during lactation don't like it, because they don't want to associate sex with their baby. So it's not necessary, and it's often unwanted, so why would it exist in the first place?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Arousal = just feeling good. Stimulation has to feel good in order for women to want to feed their kid. If it hurt all the time then women would have less kids or none and who knows what would've happened to humans.
Third and most importantly, as far as species survival goes, lactation is the EXACT time when you do NOT want a woman to get sexually aroused! A new mother must remain focused on her baby at all times if the infant is to survive.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not necessariily true. Maybe after feeding and being "aroused" she'd want to make another kid with her husband. Anyway You're equating nipple stimualtion to that of clitoris stimulation. Nipples don't have as many nerve endings and like i said the reason it feels 'arousing' is for the propagation of the species.
Mind you, it's true that technically speaking, a woman doesn't need to be lubricated or find any pleasure in sex in order to reproduce.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Exactly the point you seemed to have missed. The reason their is a pleasure response from the nipples and down low is for the continuation of the species. If it didn't feel good or felt painful we'd have a low population. That's why oxytoxin is released after birth and women can't remember how painful it was before. If they really remembered they wouldn't have more kids or as many.
Illogical and sickening.
Submitted by Del on May 19, 2014 - 9:49pm
"Arousal = just feeling good."
No. Arousal in this context specifically means sexual arousal, which:
a. some breast-feeding women who experience it do NOT enjoy, because they do NOT like having sexual feelings associated with feeding their baby;
b. is most definitely not the only type of "feeling good" which exists out there. The release of oxytocyn on its own feels good without feeling sexual. There's no need whatsoever for it to ALSO cause sexual arousal.
"Stimulation has to feel good in order for women to want to feed their kid. If it hurt all the time then women would have less kids or none and who knows what would've happened to humans."
This is a horrifying line of thought. Are you really arguing that the only reason new mothers don't let their babies starve is because they get sexual pleasure out of it!? (Never mind that only SOME women get sexually aroused during breast-feeding, by the way.) Are you REALLY arguing that new mothers, as a whole, would neglect their infants if it didn't feel sexually good to feed them!? What about caring? Even love? What about responsibility? What about good ol' motherly self-sacrifice? Newsflash: breast-feeding can hurt like hell for quite a few women (if the nipples get cracked, for example), and yet, guess what? They STILL keep on feeding their babies!
"Maybe after feeding and being "aroused" she'd want to make another kid with her husband."
No, because the oxytocyn released during breast-feeding connects her to the infant she has right now. Also, no because getting pregnant again could interfere with her current lactating before her infant can be properly weaned. Also also, no because her body needs some rest before she gets pregnant again. The female mammalian body is wired so that the new mother focuses on feeding her current young until they are weaned, before she considers having more babies - and that's valid for human females as well.
"Anyway You're equating nipple stimualtion to that of clitoris stimulation. Nipples don't have as many nerve endings"
Irrelevant. MANY women will tell you that yes, stimulation of the nipples cause DIRECT arousal of the clitoris - to the point that quite a few women can achieve so-called clitoridian orgasm from nipple play alone. If you don't even know that much, then you really shouldn't be discussing any of this.
"and like i said the reason it feels 'arousing' is for the propagation of the species. "
And you're wrong in saying so. Also, why are you putting arousal between quotes? This IS arousal we are talking about, as in getting horny, wet, and so on.
" The reason their is a pleasure response from the nipples and down low is for the continuation of the species. If it didn't feel good or felt painful we'd have a low population."
I don't know in what kind of ideal world you live, but in my world, female pleasure is NOT necessary at ANY point for successful human reproduction to occur. It is not necessary in order for a sexual encounter to lead to fertilisation, nor is it necessary for mothers to protect and feed their infants. In fact, it is very likely that the MAJORITY of successful mothers throughout the history of humanity NEVER experienced sexual pleasure in relation to reproduction! Even today, MANY women STILL experience no sexual pleasure during their sexual encounters with the fathers of their children, nor during their breastfeeding of said children. And yet, it wouldn't occur to them to let those children die.
The fact that apparently YOU think that most mothers would let their infants die of starvation if they didn't experience sexual arousal from breast-feeding really sickens me.
"That's why oxytoxin is released after birth and women can't remember how painful it was before. If they really remembered they wouldn't have more kids or as many."
You seem to be confusing oxytocyn release and sexual arousal. Again, if you don't know what you are talking about, then stay away from the topic. Sexual arousal is NOT the same as oxytocyn release.
you must be childless or a man
Submitted by caroline on September 24, 2015 - 6:54pm
Seriously oxytocin makes you forget the pain .Are you for real.
What utter crap.
"Not occasionally. LOTS of
Submitted by Jenna Demmer on October 26, 2014 - 3:49pm
"Not occasionally. LOTS of women get aroused when their nipples are touched."
Actually, not that many more women get aroused during nipple stimulation than men.
More than half of men enjoy nipple stimulation. The same is true fo 80% of women. Not that big of a difference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16681470
"First, if that were true, then it would induce lactation ALL THE TIME, not just when a woman is a new mother. The mammary glands are swollen all the time after all, not just when the woman gets pregnant as in most other mammalian species, so why wouldn't stimulation always induce lactation?"
I don't know, maybe for the OBVIOUS reason that milk has to be ready first? Milk isn't always present within the breast. It's produced after childbirth, due to hormones. You can't lactate unless you have milk in your breasts, and if you don't have those hormones set right.
"Go tell that to the millions of women who NEED nipple stimulation before they can tolerate - let alone find pleasure in - being touched anywhere around their genitals. Loads and loads and LOADS of women NEED to have their breasts fondled in order to start lubricating, and find ANY touching of the clitoris, the vagina or anything else around there PAINFUL without that nipple-induced lubrication."
^Except, if you've taken a biology or anatomy course, you'd know that THAT IS NOT WHAT A "SEX ORGAN" IS.
Biologically speaking, enlarged female breasts actually fall under the same sexual category as facial hair, not penises and vaginas. They are considered to be SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTICS, not sex organs. Facial hair is also a secondary sex characteristic.
I'll link to an online version of my Anatomy/Physiology textbook.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4idMNpe04qgC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=sex+organ+vs+secondary+sex+characteristics&source=bl&ots=jAg4DGeRDX&sig=NEc6zb0qKyzQ6e91Lhqj4bFzLNw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hz8nVPtFhPTIBO2agpgJ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=breasts&f=false pg 268-279, learn more about what differentiates sex organs & secondary sex characteristics. Description of boobs being classified as secondary sex characteristics on pg 279.
PRIMARY sex ORGANS: ORGANS THAT CONTAIN GAMETES. I.e. testicles and ovaries.
SECONDARY sex ORGANS: uterus, or organs that aid in transport of eggs/sperm to uterus. i.e. fallopian tubes, PENIS, vagina, etc.
SECONDARY sex CHARACTERISTICS: characteristics that differentiate males and females, but don’t have a DIRECT part in reproduction. Examples include enlarged breasts in females, enlarged muscles in men, adam’s apples, facial hair, etc. Learn more about the classification of boobs as secondary sex CHARACTERISTICS on p279.
In regards to sexual pleasure, breasts are an EROGENOUS ZONE. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "SEX ORGAN" AND "EROGENOUS ZONE". An erogenous zone is not necessarily a sex organ". IF THEY WERE, THEN THE LIPS WOULD ALSO BE A "SEX ORGAN", SINCE LIPS ARE ALSO EROGENOUS ZONE - STIMULATION (KISSING, MAKING OUT, ETC) ALSO INCREASES AROUSAL.
Nope, what YOU said is stupid
Submitted by Jeanne on July 5, 2016 - 9:56pm
Nope, what YOU said is stupid: "so if breast stimulation is necessary for a woman to get lubricated and aroused, then yeah, her breasts are sexual organs for her - and you don't get to tell her otherwise." - Well, hell, I should cover my ears then, because stimulating them (or the back of my neck - goodness!!) is what drives me insane. Or my lips (oooh, maybe I should have to wear a veil.) Or stroking my hair (I should wear a hat, too). Or, weirdly, touching the back of my knee (perhaps I should just not leave the house).
Breasts are NOT sexual organs. I can't believe this is a post.
Breasts are sexual
Submitted by Anonymous on May 18, 2014 - 4:47pm
Breasts are sexual organs! A lot of women are different yes. But I get aroused with touching and stimulating my nipples. Women do feel aroused(the same feelings) when breast feeding too. Why do you think this is?! To instil the bonding hormone between partners, lovers, and mother and babies. This makes perfect sense. Why do you think men like to see boobs so much? They are sexually stimulating, a sign of fertility and being womanly.
Except, if you've taken a
Submitted by Jenna Demmer on October 26, 2014 - 3:37pm
Except, if you've taken a biology or anatomy course, you'd know that THAT IS NOT WHAT A "SEX ORGAN" IS.
Biologically speaking, enlarged female breasts actually fall under the same sexual category as facial hair, not penises and vaginas. They are considered to be SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTICS, not sex organs. Facial hair is also a secondary sex characteristic.
I'll link to an online version of my Anatomy/Physiology textbook.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4idMNpe04qgC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=sex+organ+vs+secondary+sex+characteristics&source=bl&ots=jAg4DGeRDX&sig=NEc6zb0qKyzQ6e91Lhqj4bFzLNw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hz8nVPtFhPTIBO2agpgJ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=breasts&f=false pg 268-279, learn more about what differentiates sex organs & secondary sex characteristics. Description of boobs being classified as secondary sex characteristics on pg 279.
PRIMARY sex ORGANS: ORGANS THAT CONTAIN GAMETES. I.e. testicles and ovaries.
SECONDARY sex ORGANS: uterus, or organs that aid in transport of eggs/sperm to uterus. i.e. fallopian tubes, PENIS, vagina, etc.
SECONDARY sex CHARACTERISTICS: characteristics that differentiate males and females, but don’t have a DIRECT part in reproduction. Examples include enlarged breasts in females, enlarged muscles in men, adam’s apples, facial hair, etc. Learn more about the classification of boobs as secondary sex CHARACTERISTICS on p279.
IN REGARDS TO SEXUAL PLEASURE, BREASTS ARE AN EROGENOUS ZONE. AN EROGENOUS ZONE IS NOT NECESSARILY A "SEX ORGAN". IF THEY WERE, THEN THE LIPS WOULD ALSO BE A "SEX ORGAN", SINCE LIPS ARE ALSO EROGENOUS ZONE - STIMULATION (KISSING, MAKING OUT, ETC) ALSO INCREASES AROUSAL.
You Are Wrong
Submitted by Rebecca Everson on August 17, 2015 - 9:48pm
Breasts are not sexual organs. Sexual organs are needed for the housing/transporting/protection of haploid and diploid cells, sot that would be the uterus, testicles, fallopian tubes, etc.
Breasts are SEEN AS sexual, but that's not even in all cultures. This article is Western/American-centric and excludes the fact that in cultures where women regularly walk around topless, men don't care and are not aroused by their breasts. They see nothing sexy in it.
Sexually stimulating =/= sexual organ. If that were the case, butts and lips would be sexual organs. Feet would be sexual organs because there are people who have foot fetishes.
Essentially, just because it's sexually arousing doesn't mean it's a sexual organ--that logic would mean that the uterus is not a sexual organ because nobody finds them sexy.
Finding breasts, secondary sex characteristics, sexy is on the same level as finding blondes or tall people sexy. It's a fetish. If it is not genitalia and you are sexually attracted to it, then it is a fetish (or paraphillia).
The primary function of breasts is to feed children, which is not sexual. Back when we were more naked and the opposite sex could look more openly, large breasts/wide hips were preferred because it meant that one could carry and provide for offspring, which is a non-sexual task.
Your tangent ignores the article
Submitted by Canof Sand on July 27, 2019 - 2:31am
"Rebecca Everson" wrote:Breasts are SEEN AS sexual, but that's not even in all cultures. This article is Western/American-centric and excludes the fact that in cultures where women regularly walk around topless, ...
Did you even read the article? It specifically addressed this as if in anticipation that someone like you would make that argument.
"Rebecca Everson" wrote:Sexually stimulating =/= sexual organ.
Semantics. The meaning of words matters, but you're going off on a tangent as if that tangent refutes the actual article or the studies referenced, which it does not.
BREASTS ARE NOT SEXUAL ORGANS
Submitted by Anonymous on May 18, 2014 - 7:29pm
BREASTS ARE NOT SEXUAL ORGANS YOU INCONSIDERATE DICK!
Breasts are mammary organs, meaning their true and primary purpose is to nurse babies.
I’ll repeat that for the slow people in the class, you warthog-faced buffoon.
Breasts are mammary sacks. They are meant to feed babies, just like a cow’s udder. They aren’t sexual organs. They aren’t classified as such in biology texts (certainly none of the ones I checked out to answer this post)
Men have breasts, you pile of refuse. Their breasts are smaller than women’s, but they possess the same mammary glands and, properly stimulated, can produce milk. Men can get breast cancer. They can develop larger breasts due to excessive hormones. Their breasts are exactly like a women’s breast, except that since their testicles produce testosterone in high degree, they don’t have enough female hormones in their bodies to start lactating.
So, you pile of putrescence, you’re probably thinking, “If breasts aren’t sex organs then how come guys get horny looking at them and women get turned on by playing worth them, huh?”
The answers to both are so terribly simple that you might just be able to follow them if you pay attention, pig.
Men are enticed by breasts because they’re not allowed to see them. Women are sensitive because stimulation triggers two responses - bonding hormones and lactation.
In case you’re too simple to get this, I’ll break it down further for you. In cultures where breasts are viewed daily, they don’t do much to get a guy hot and bothered. There are hundreds of paintings from the renaissance period and earlier depicting women nursing babies, especially images of the Blessed Virgin nursing Christ, and none of these have ever been considered provocative, because that’s what boobs are for. Meanwhile, in cultures where everyone from baby sister to great-great grandma walk around topless because the weather will kill them otherwise, dudes don’t get raging erections every time they see a breast. They don’t find boobs enticing the way men do in America, where boobs are considered shameful and need to be hidden.
As for women getting aroused by their boobs being played with, you brainless donkey, a woman’s body responds to get nipples bring touched by flooding her body with bonding hormones that help her attach to get babies - you know, the people her breasts are actually supposed to be used by - and hormones that get her glands making milk. Also, please note that many women with large breasts don’t feel any stimulation when fondled, meaning they aren’t sensitive enough to get off on having their boobs played with.
Do me a favor and GET THE FUCK OVER YOURSELF YOU PURITANICAL ASS! My breasts are NOT SEXUAL ORGANS. They are lactation organs designed for my use and my baby’s use. Not for any man’s use or pleasure.
You inconsiderate space herpe.
Who made you Goddess?
Submitted by Del on May 18, 2014 - 8:01pm
Many women find their breasts to be sexual organs for themselves. You don't get to tell them they are wrong. You really don't. Your breasts are not sexual organs for you? Fine! Nobody cares. But you DO NOT get to tell OTHER WOMEN how THEY should feel about THEIR breasts.
Also, wake up: do you really think it was a coincidence that classical painters should so often choose to depict scenes that, oops, required them to insert a naked boob or two? Or even better: have you not noticed just how many classical paintings insert naked boobs and butts and whatnots where there was absolutely no need for them? I'll spell it out for you: they painted naked people for the same reason that artists today paint and photograph and film naked people: because of the erotic/pornographic aspect of it. Yes, even when they depicted the Virgin Mary feeding the baby Christ. Come on, of all the Mary/Jesus scenes they could have chosen to depict, they just HAD to pick THE one where she's got a boob showing? Again and again and again? Yeah, right.
Really? Those artists didn't
Submitted by No on May 19, 2014 - 10:48pm
Really? Those artists didn't only paint breasts, you know. Because you see, there were also tons of completely naked men out in paintings, many painted by men themselves.
And usually, when women breastfeed, they have to use both breasts to feed their infant child. Sure, in public a woman won't show her naked breast, but then again it is frowned upon in most societies today.
Warning: sarcasm.
Submitted by Del on May 20, 2014 - 6:47am
"Really? Those artists didn't only paint breasts, you know. Because you see, there were also tons of completely naked men out in paintings, many painted by men themselves."
Hmm, tons of naked men and women, often naked for no reason at all... You're right, that doesn't sound *at all* like erotic or pornographic imagery!
Yeah, because obviously
Submitted by Jenna Demmer on October 26, 2014 - 4:09pm
Yeah, because obviously breasts can’t be seen as anything but in a sexual light, even when the breast is breastfeeding. Obviously these images weren’t used to enforce the fertility & nourishing & motherly aspect of the breasts, and of Virgin Mary (sarcasm). The ***************Virgin*********** Mary is known for being a nurturing mother, not as being a sex object.
But yeah, whatever. The Virgin Mary wasn’t seen as a loving mother nourishing her child. The breastfeeding wasn’t depicted as an enforcement and illustration of her role as the “Mother of God”. She was just an image that everybody jacked off to. Completely ignoring the fact that Jesus himself was VERY against “lust” & lustful imagery, so making ~Virgin Mary & Jesus porn~ would’ve been a massive insult.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE: http://33.media.tumblr.com/fde66f77df1d6b313164a4f56ea327b1/tumblr_ndhxvvIv2q1sojamro1_1280.jpg
^The Egyptian goddess Nut was a sky goddess. She was believed to be the sky. She was also a Mother Goddess, nurturing all life, & nurturing the dead, and providing them with water and food to sustain life.
She was often depicted with milk coming from her breasts, to represent "rain". Just like breastmilk sustains the life of infants, especially in times when no other food is available, rain sustains the life of...everyone and everything. If there was no rain, we'd all be dead - there'd be no water. Especially in a dry area like Ancient Egypt where they seldom received rain, rain was seen as a vitalizing aspect of nature, because it was.
The depiction of Nut's breasts wasn't to ~arouse people~ or ~turn people on~, it was to display her motherhood, and how she nurtured all living things, and kept all living things alive.
And this is coming from a Kemetic Polytheist (yes, Ancient Egyptian polytheists do still exist), and Nut is the main goddess I worship.
I honestly can’t. In this oversexualized world we live in, BREASTFEEDING is pornographic? No. Just sit down.
Hint: If you think breastfeeding is pornographic, stay the FUCK away from infants. Pedophile.
As someone who studies
Submitted by Jenna Demmer on October 26, 2014 - 3:41pm
As someone who studies ancient mythology: Are you seriously trying to claim that people exposed the breast, during breastfeeding, for an "arousal" aspect? As "porn"? Especially considering how AGAINST "lust" Jesus was, the Bible is, and the Christians are?
Anyway, a woman CANNOT decide for herself that her breasts are "sexual organs" any more than they can decide their hair is a "sexual organ" because "sexual organs" is a scientific term, which breasts aren't.
Biologically speaking, enlarged female breasts actually fall under the same sexual category as facial hair, not penises and vaginas. They are considered to be SECONDARY SEX CHARACTERISTICS, not sex organs. Facial hair is also a secondary sex characteristic.
I'll link to an online version of my Anatomy/Physiology textbook.
http://books.google.com/books?id=4idMNpe04qgC&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=sex+organ+vs+secondary+sex+characteristics&source=bl&ots=jAg4DGeRDX&sig=NEc6zb0qKyzQ6e91Lhqj4bFzLNw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hz8nVPtFhPTIBO2agpgJ&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=breasts&f=false pg 268-279, learn more about what differentiates sex organs & secondary sex characteristics. Description of boobs being classified as secondary sex characteristics on pg 279.
PRIMARY sex ORGANS: ORGANS THAT CONTAIN GAMETES. I.e. testicles and ovaries.
SECONDARY sex ORGANS: uterus, or organs that aid in transport of eggs/sperm to uterus. i.e. fallopian tubes, PENIS, vagina, etc.
SECONDARY sex CHARACTERISTICS: characteristics that differentiate males and females, but don’t have a DIRECT part in reproduction. Examples include enlarged breasts in females, enlarged muscles in men, adam’s apples, facial hair, etc. Learn more about the classification of boobs as secondary sex CHARACTERISTICS on p279.
IN REGARDS TO SEXUAL PLEASURE, BREASTS ARE AN EROGENOUS ZONE. AN EROGENOUS ZONE IS NOT NECESSARILY A "SEX ORGAN". IF THEY WERE, THEN THE LIPS WOULD ALSO BE A "SEX ORGAN", SINCE LIPS ARE ALSO EROGENOUS ZONE - STIMULATION (KISSING, MAKING OUT, ETC) ALSO INCREASES AROUSAL.
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next
Post Comment
advertisement
