Is Breastfeeding/Skin Hunger Incest?

Not open for further replies.
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 offspring, not on sexual chemicals being present in human activity.

I think your train of thought has merit, but with one caveat- incest is -not- defined as exclusive to the realm of sexual intercourse between family members. It is defined as sexual -activity- between family members. What constitutes a sexual activity is a truly messy discussion. I think the whole thing is a terrible waste of time personally, and would much rather focus on what is right and wrong. If your argument that only reproduction between family members should be considered -wrong-, I think you'd have a much more defendable argument. I don't think you'll win any prizes for logical reasoning in this society, but there have certainly been many societies where even reproduction by siblings, say, wasn't necessarily taboo, especially if it was royalty and even today, there are places where cousins can be legally married.
This post is in response to the 1st part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
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.

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.

I have no idea what you're talking about, but sounds good :)

Tiassa said:
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.

I assume you say that because journalists should always refer to themselves as simply 'center' and therefore unbiased? Personally I wouldn't go for that; I can easily imagine that he could argue that center-right is the only unbiased view, while journalists who identify themselves as center left or just plain left could also argue that theirs it the only unbiased view. Personally, I think that wikipedia is quite wise in its introduction to the term:
A journalist (also called a newspaperman) is a person who practices journalism, the gathering and dissemination of information about current events, trends, issues, and people while striving [emphasis mine] for viewpoints that aren't biased.​

In other words, he uses the spectre of an insupportable assertion of conspiratorial bias to justify his own propaganda ambitions.

Conspiratorial bias?

Tiassa said:
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.

I've actually been having something of a disagreement with StrangerInAStrangeLa over a certain definition, laugh :).

Tiassa said:
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.

How does a rhetorical trick defy itself :)? Anyway, when it comes to certain definitions, such as God, I can accept that others have different definitions of the term then I do; but no one is going to change -my- definition of God just because they don't like it.

Tiassa said:
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.

This is precisely the disagreement that I've been having with Stranger- I have a feeling you may have been watching ;-).

Tiassa said:
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.

Personally, I think he's provided enough evidence for it to have merit. However, I think that -everyone- is getting away from the -real- point; what is -moral-. I don't give a fig how one defines a sexual act; what I care about is what's right and wrong.

Tiassa said:
Yet, and we'll come back to this in a minute, he's also viciously rejecting the counterpoints.

I haven't followed everything that he's said; I simply believe that he's trying to say something that may well be valid but is frequently using the wrong words.
This post is in response to the 2nd part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
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.

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.

What do you mean by specifically-framed, specficically-lit, specifically-composed?

Tiassa said:
scott3x said:
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.

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.

I don't share your optimism.

Tiassa said:
The person who would be convicted would likely be whoever stole and posted the pictures.

I can certainly agree that that person is the only one who should receive censure. However, like I said, I don't share your optimism that that's the only person who would receive it.
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.

Did you read my post right?

It's primarily a bonding hormone, not a sexual hormone.

Obviously, you bond with someone when you fuck them, or one hopes you do.

How do you get from there to 'All human interactions where oxytocin is produced, must be sexual?'

It is not negative subjectivity, it is a counterpoint to the trash you keep insisting is fact.

Let me reiterate a point which I think was made by James R.

You also produce adrenaline while having sex.

Does it follow from there that adrenaline = sex?

Hell, if you want to take that viewpoint, any of the neurotransmitters involved in being at all normal or energetic - adrenaline, noradrenaline, dopamine - are sexual, since you release them before or during sex.

According to that logic, every act would be sexual, except falling asleep, or having a seizure due to lack of all those neurotransmitters you had sucked out so you wouldn't be producing horrid sex chemicals all the time.
This post is in response to the 3rd part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
Tiassa said:
Mandating an association between shame and fundamental existence has long been a task for religion. It should not be law.

I have a strong feeling religions wouldn't be so keen on agreeing with you that they do such a thing, laugh :). I believe you are referring to 'original sin', a concept I don't think I've ever agreed with.

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.

Sometimes painfully so :p.

Tiassa said:
scott3x said:
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?).

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.

I wonder. Wikipedia begings its entry on pornography thusly:
Pornography or porn is the explicit depiction of sexual subject matter with the sole intention of sexually exciting the viewer.

The above definition kind of makes me laugh a bit; it's akin to artistic movies that clearly have elements that could be seen as pornographic but hey, can't be pornographic because hey, look, artistic merit :rolleyes:

However, the idea of a more wholesome porn isn't a bad one...

I know that I've definitely come under the sway that pornography is somehow 'bad'. Perhaps it's a relic of this whole original sin concept. In any case, I certainly believe that many times, sexual desire can be combined with love. I absolutely detest the way many try to isolate sexual desire from love. I generally dislike a fair amount of commercial porn precisely because it seems a lot of it tries to do this. I suppose you could say that I try to go for the more artistic stuff, hoping to find images that depict love as well as things that sexually arouse.

In other words, I think the definition of pornography should be 'something that sexually arouses'. The bad porn should be defined as something that may go through the sexual motions but lacks loving depictions, and the good porn would include those loving depictions, or wholesome porn.
This post is in response to the 4th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
Tiassa said:
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.

Why do you think that?

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

It seems to me that the 'knowledge' in question is simply words; as in, that pleasure is sexual. I don't think we need to know certain words to describe things in order for them to be nice.

Tiassa said:
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.

In my particular case, I don't think so. However, while I would argue that I know when I first masturbated, I certainly admit that it 'felt' nice to hold the item in question when going to sleep years before I actually set it in motion, if you will.

Tiassa said:
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.

Tiassa, I would argue that you, like myself, suffer from what might be called the 'original sin' complex. When not taken from a legal/societal perspective, why should it matter whether an act was 'overtly sexual' or not?
This post is in response to the 5th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
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?

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

• James R, #8

James started that post by defining incest as follows:
Sexual intercourse between persons too closely related to marry (as between a parent and a child).

James' definition of incest would certainly make it easier to know what it is. However, many people don't go by it. I think my response to James' point in post#9 bears mentioning:
I personally think that wikipedia's definition of incest is more thorough:
Incest refers to any sexual activity between closely related persons (often within the immediate family) that is illegal or socially taboo. The type of sexual activity and the nature of the relationship between persons that constitutes a breach of law or social taboo vary with culture and jurisdiction. Some societies consider it to include only those who live in the same household, or who belong to the same clan or lineage; other societies consider it to include "blood relatives"; other societies further include those related by adoption or marriage.[1]

Sexual activity, in turn, is very loosely defined and I could certainly see it including breastfeeding. This wouldn't even be a problem if our society wasn't so obsessed with the idea that children should have nothing to do with sexuality; unfortunately, this is not the case and so we frequently have to deny that this, that or the other is sexual when it may well actually have sexual components to it.

Tiassa said:
• Bells, #13

Bells brought up various points, but I didn't see that she knocked out the idea that breastfeeding could be seen as sexual.

Tiassa said:
• Laladopi, #19

Laladopi says that hugs release chemicals and that there's nothing wrong with hugs. I think most people would agree with that; however, when it comes to breastfeeding, I think that most people in society believe that after, say, 2, it's 'innapropriate'. I personally think that the fact that it's a genital area has a lot to do with it.

Tiassa said:
• Visceral Instinct, #36 (affirmation of #8)
• James R, #39 (reminder)

Those last 2 are countered by my #9.

Tiassa said:
—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.

Bells brings up a good point in #45 actually:
There are limits. I think if a parent is becoming aroused when bathing an infant.. in that the act of bathing said infant is the direct cause of the arousal and attraction to said infant, then that parent obviously has some issues and the child can be in danger if the parent acts out on those feelings.

In essence, she makes the argument that if a parent finds bathing their child arousing then the that parent 'obviously has some issues'. The idea being that parents (and probably anyone else) should find absolutely nothing arousing in their child and that a parent or anyone else that did has 'issues'. The only issues I think such a person has straight off the bat is with society, which has deemed that such arousal is wrong. It is for this reason that I think that ancientregime makes an excellent point- some mothers feel sexually aroused when breastfeeding; and why the heck not? Nipples are genitals and more sensitive then most skin, after all. You have tried to argue in the past that if the breasts aren't producing milk that it should therefore not be good to let a child suckle a breast; I think that's as close as you or anyone here has gotten to the fact that breastfeeding can easily be seen as sexual; the only thing that staves off society from labelling it as such is that breastmilk is generally the best food a baby can have.

Tiassa said:
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.

The thing is, the more that I've thought about it, the more I think that ancientregime has a point; that is, that breastfeeding can be seen as sexual. Either that or virtually nothing but sexual intercourse can be seen that way. I think the best example remains that if breastfeeding is not seen as sexual, then neither should sucking a non lactating breast; something that I think most people would have a hard time doing. To me, it reminds me of the issue of pornography- the idea that it's something that is -only- for sexual excitation; that if it's combined with anything else, it can't be pornography. To me, this idea is rather silly, both with pornography and with breast sucking, but it's one that our society -can't- give up because of our original sin complex which dictates that since sexuality is seen as somewhat sinful, we can't allow anything sexual into the lives of young children.

Tiassa said:
Bells replied to one of your posts with #121, and states the case admirably:

Bells said:
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 ....

.... 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?

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 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 agree that ancientregime may have gotten side tracked by issues that aren't really all that relevant. I personally think that my angle is much more relevant (but then, ofcourse I would, since it's my thought processes I'm talking about here :p). However, I think that while I may be controversial, I'm not as controversial as ancientregime, atleast in this area. While he may have left this thread, he would like to start a debate thread regarding pedophilia over in Formal Debates:
Proposal: Is Pedophilia Pseudoscience?

I had somewhat suspected from the beginning that this was what he was really getting at; that is, the restrictions of childhood sexuality and adult/minor interactions. It seems that he personally thinks the solution is to label a bunch of things as non sexual. To me, however, I find it more truthful to simply say that, actually, many things can indeed be sexual; the real issue is if that makes them wrong.
This post is in response to the 6th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
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.

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.

As I mentioned before, while I think his view concerning the importance of oxytocin is misplaced, I think there is certainly an argument to be made that religious right wing types would like to further police not only our actions but our very ways of thinking.

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

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.[/quote]

I can go for that; while I doubt it, I admit that it's possible :). However, I think that the focus of the future has already made itself rather clear; on what we -think- not on what chemicals are released in our bodies. To a large extent, I think there's merit in this- I think that our thought processes have much more control over what we do then chemical reactions in our body. However, I know that the extent to which we right wing elements are already policing our lives in regards to sexuality is cause for concern. Have you read Harmful to Minors? It was a real eye opener for me anyway.

Tiassa said:
scott3x said:
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.

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.

Perhaps. I remember an argument was made that minors shouldn't have sex before marriage because oxytocin would get them to bond even if they weren't compatible. As far as I know, however, it would still happen when they're older as well and you can certainly break up even if this is the case. When looking for something, I found an interesting article on oxytocin here:
Oxytocin Revisited
Last edited:
This post is in response to the 7th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
Tiassa said:
The common point here is that the presence of a simple component in two systems does not make the systems similar.

Whoa there. If bonobos are closely related to us, the above argument doesn't really fly.

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 think what you're trying to buttress your argument that breastfeeding isn't sexual- that's it right? I simply don't buy it though. I can certainly agree that it's usually not -seen- as a sexual activity, so long as the milk is flowing, but that's about it. I contend that the problem here, however, is not whether it's sexual or not, but the fear our society has of engaging in anything that could be seen of as sexual with minors.

Tiassa said:
scott3x said:
Honestly, I think the only reason there's such a fuss concerning sexuality is because of what is closely related to it- love and children. 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.

I will defer to later consideration of that issue because it's just huge.

I agree :).

Tiassa said:
I will, however, acknowledge and agree with the last sentence.

Good stuff :)

Tiassa said:
scott3x said:
Are pictures of naked children on a beach or running around overtly sexual? Perhaps not even for the Freudian . And yet, they're virtually always labelled as 'child porn'.

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

In other words, if it's labelled as sexual, then its sexual and therefore bad? :rolleyes:

And who should get in trouble? The people who snapped the pics? The people who posted them to the forum in question? My vote is for neither.

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

An exploitative or sexual context- I believe you're blurring the lines between exploitation and sexual here and I think that is a very dangerous thing to do. I would argue that there is a -vast- gulf between sexual and exploitative and I find it sad that the 2 are so often confused. I also believe that pornography should be divided, atleast into 2 categories:
wholesome pornography and unwholesome pornography. I think we should work to curtail the unwholesome pornography, no matter the ages of the participants.

Tiassa said:
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".

Lol :). I don't know about that though; there's going to have to be some really serious changes in our society if we're to survive at all- we are living in a way that's simply not sustainable.

Tiassa said:
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.

I can agree with that anyway :).
This post is in response to the 8th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
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.

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'd like to think that in some ways, he's trying to say what I'm trying to say, but simply doesn't use the best approach to go about it.

Tiassa said:
scott3x said:
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.

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.

Well, if he doesn't change his mind, it looks like he will no longer do so in this particular thread. However, I created a new one in response to him and he is trying to get a debate going regarding whether pedophilia is pseudoscience over in Formal Debates; again, I think he has his wording off, but I think James is trying to get him to clarify his position.
This post is in response to the 9th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
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.

Something about definitions of civility, but that also is beside the point.

I certainly admit that ancientregime's posting style could use some polishing ;-).

Tiassa said:
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.

Ofcourse, he never argued that there was; he said that -others- could make the claim :p. For now though, it seems to be relatively safe, although ofcourse there is the case where a mother was arrested because of a picture found wherein she was breastfeeding. I think it's these types of people that ancientregime had in mind.

Tiassa said:
In other words, that some basket case somewhere makes an assertion doesn't mean the assertion is valid or credible.

Ofcourse. The worry is when people in positions of authority are the 'basket cases' in question, such as the Richardson police who arrested the mother in the article above.
This post is in response to the 10th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
Tiassa said:
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.

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

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.

What do you mean by the expectation of differentiation?

Tiassa said:
And it seems we have little to disagree about.

Cool :)

Tiassa said:
scott3x said:
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 :p)

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.

How so?

Tiassa said:
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.

I think the real issue is, should it be illegal for consenting adults to engage in familial sexual practices? While I can certainly agree that -reproduction- should be controlled so as not to produce children with genetic difficulties, I see no harm with other sexual activities, when removed from societal and legal perspectives.

Tiassa said:
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.

You're confusing me with this 'differentiation' term :p.
This post is in response to the 11th part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
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 ....

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.

I agree. -However-, I think there's something to be said about breastfeeding being seen as -sexual-. And the older the person doing the sucking, the more prevalent this becomes:
Mother ordered to stop breastfeeding boy, eight

Tiassa said:
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.

Honestly, I think that ancientregime is more interested in issues other then breastfeeding; I think he simply thought that it would be good to -start- with the issue of breastfeeding, but then got bogged down in it.

Tiassa said:
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?

I would argue that it's being done because of some of the people in control of the the mainstream media; as to why they're doing it, perhaps they wish to undermine Obama's presidency.
This post is in response to the 12th and final part of Tiassa's post 158 in this thread.

scott3x said:
I believe that ancientregime is concerned that governments are encroaching too much on our liberties, a concern I certainly share.

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.

What ludicrous injustice are you speaking of here?

Tiassa said:
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.

I agree with the argument that more detailed laws are necessary. I think that part of the more detailed laws should differentiate between what I call wholesome pornography and unwholesome pornography. Personally, I think that wholesome pornography may not need to be barred at all, but I understand that our society is still very stuck in its original sin complex.

Tiassa said:
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.

Laugh :p.

Tiassa said:
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.

Sounds good :)
If a woman becomes sexually aroused and masturbates when breastfeeding a baby or child she is a pedophile and should be arrested just like men who are pedophiles. Becoming sexually aroused to orgasm when in physical contact with a child no matter what kind of physical contact it is, is sexual contact with a child and pure pedophilia and the government should have it banned. If men were to become sexually aroused and masturbate by some kind of legal touch from a child, he would be arrested and labelled a pedophile and maby even murdered in jail, but women get away with being a pedophile
Not open for further replies.