sex educationeBook

 
INFANT AND CHILD SEXUALITY
 
 
 
 
 





To remove the nipple from the infant's mouth the mother...

 



To remove the nipple from the infant's mouth the mother merely assumed an upright position. In other words, the stimulation was severely restricted, being limited to the presence of the nipple within the infant's mouth. No caressing, no fondling by the mother, no eye to eye contact, no opportunity for the infant to touch the mother's face, to place his fingers in his mouth apparently existed during the experimental period. The question left unanswered is how many of these infant boys would have responded with penile erections under their normal nursing conditions. Some older infants in the Halverson experiment thumped the nipple vigorously with the tongue and rolled it about in the mouth in what Halverson regarded as purely playful activity, but these things occurred only with bottle feeding; none of the breast fed babies exhibited this reaction.


Halverson concluded that so-called pleasure sucking activities have little or no connection with penile erection. Penile erection did occur during the observation period but never during sucking at the breast. Instead, erection occurred when infants encountered a difficult or irritating situation. Halverson was inclined to interpret the erections as related to abdominal pressure, for when thwarting was introduced (such as removing the nipple or giving the infant a difficult nipple) the resulting movements were conspicuously characterized by severe contractions of the abdominal walls.


While other motor patterns varied during the onset of penile erection, marked abdominal pressure was always present. The fact that marked abdominal pressure is probably the most effective stimulus for penile erection, as observed in the Halverson experiment, does not rule out other possible stimulants, such as the stimulation received in a normal satisfying nursing experience.


Turning now to the mother's responses, the mother's physiological responses to sucking and coitus are very similar. Uterine contractions occur during the sucking as they do during sexual stimulation. Nipple erection occurs during both, with an increase of 1 to 1.5 centimeters in nipple length occurring due to sexual stimulation. (Masters and Johnson, 1966). Milk ejection has been observed to occur in both, and the degree of milk ejection appears to be related to the degree of erotic response. The nipple-erection reflex may lead to more efficient nursing, increasing the satisfaction for the sucking infant as well as for the mother. Marked breast stimulation occurring during sucking or through fondling and caressing induces orgasm in some women.


Mothers who choose to suckle their babies have a higher general level of sexual interest than do non-suckling post-partum women. Two studies in which mothers who suckled their babies were compared with those who did not bear this out. (Sears, Maccoby, and Levin, 1957, p.74; Masters and Johnson, 1966, p. 161-163). Mothers who had positive attitudes toward suckling gave more milk and were more successful in breast feeding than those with negative feelings toward suckling. Uteruses of suckling mothers returned to normal size sooner. Many mothers (25% in one study) felt erotic arousal during suckling-to the point of orgasm for a few of them.


Suckling mothers not only reported erotic stimulation from the suckling experience; they were interested in as rapid a return to coitus with their husbands as possible. Suckling mothers engaged in coitus sooner post-partum than did non-suckling mothers. They were more interested in sex, and placed more importance on the exchange of affection with others than did mothers who chose to bottle-feed their babies. "Anyone who has ever observed the sensuous manner in which many mothers fondle their babies will appreciate that a mother too may have contact need..." (Masters and Johnson, 1966). Suckling mothers were also more tolerant toward erotic behavior of their offspring, such as masturbation and sex play with others. (Sears, et al, 1957, p. 549).




© 2008