Guide for Couples' Lactation

Roman Charity
1627-28
Oil on canvas, 96 x 73 cm
Musée du Louvre, Paris

 Realistic guide to couples' lactation

By Mayfieldflower RN

At any given time, I correspond with a half-dozen or so couples who are attempting to induce lactation, most of whom have no interest in a true adult nursing relationship. Instead they arrive at my blog having searched for information in the context of a desire to breastfeed a soon-to-be adopted child. Regardless of intent, the journey to lactation outside of pregnancy is a difficult one, and one that past conversations and experience tell me fewer than half will complete. The successful ones are most often those whose partners fully and joyfully participate.

The reasons the majority of couples discontinue an attempt to induce lactation don't vary that much. Most common is her complaint of sore nipples or extreme breast tenderness, followed by the sheer magnitude of the time commitment for either or both partners. One couple told me that the process of induction "seemed too weird" after they tried it for a day, and another said it made them feel "not as sexy" together (I'll never understand that one). One tearful and very disappointed woman said she simply couldn't tolerate the hormone changes her body began to undergo, and stopped despite her partner's reassurance and encouragement to continue.

As I reflect upon all of this, I realize that there is really no "best practices" guide available to couples who wish to induce lactation together. There is varied information regarding the effects of specific herbs or ways to obtain off-label medications, and random instructions as to a proper latch along with recommendations for breast pumps and marginal support groups, but no real-world, what-to-expect type of information. Thus my contribution to the ANR community today is to post a set of truths about induced lactation which reasonably begin to prepare a couple for the journey.

Note that none of my offerings will apply to all couples, all of the time, nor should they, as every couple and every circumstance is different. My words are, however, an honest reflection of the most common struggles and obstacles encountered in the journey to induce lactation, posted by an RN and certified lactation consultant who is utterly dedicated to the cause.

First, time is imperative. A couple should set aside between six and eight weeks to have the best chance of bringing in her milk. While some rare women have accomplished full lactation in four weeks, others need ten, thus six to eight is the most reasonable expectation.

Most protocols I've seen for inducing lactation suggest that a partner should nurse with a full latch for fifteen to twenty minutes per breast every three hours. It's my experience that this is too much in the beginning and doesn't adequately prepare her nipples for nursing, thus extreme breast tenderness results. Instead, for the first two weeks, nursing sessions should be spaced longer apart in hours to give her nipples time in between to rest, but they should likewise be longer in minutes per session. The stimulation necessary to initiate the first hormone spikes of estrogen, progesterone and prolactin is best balanced with the least nipple soreness with a commitment of thirty gentle minutes per breast, every four to six hours. After the initial two weeks, the estrogen/progesterone spike must be augmented by a steadier release of prolactin, which occurs in response to regular, prolonged nipple stimulation, and it is then that a regimen of fifteen to twenty vigorous minutes per breast every three to four hours best accomplishes this goal. Note that sometimes it is necessary for this protocol to continue for a long as six weeks, every day, around the clock, even if her body seems not to respond at first, and it is during this time that the couples I have worked with are the most easily discouraged.

The next factor in the successful induction of lactation is her body's release of oxytocin. Oxytocin is called many things...the love hormone, the cuddle hormone, the orgasm hormone, the childbirth hormone...and it is all of those things. It's also, however, a shy, tricky, demanding little beast which is quite easily affected by circumstance. If she's stressed, or fearful, or insecure, even at the most subtle of levels, oxytocin production will be inhibited and lactation will likely not occur, or occur with great difficulty.

In the real word, this means that her partner must make every effort to provide a secure and nurturing space within which the process of inducing lactation begins. Rather than one big, certain gesture, however, this is better received as a series of small efforts, tender reassurances and constant encouragement. Most women (myself included) feel very touchy and cuddly when the oxytocin/prolactin cocktail begins to surge; what isn't obvious, however, is that nature designs this reaction specifically to enhance oxytocin release. Skin to skin contact when not actively nursing, something as simple as stroking her chest and upper arms and neck and face when lying together in bed or even when watching television, can dramatically raise oxytocin levels.

It's also true that the body's major stress hormones, including cortisol, inhibit oxytocin release, thus it's important that her partner makes every attempt to shelter her from anger or even difficult conversations during these weeks, bringing her down gently when frustrations arise. With my patients giving birth, I often say that the quickest route to a Caesarean section is for the people surrounding the laboring mother to grow stressed and impatient, and I've been known to toss out of the room more than one person who failed to contribute to the gentle, nurturing, supportive cocoon I create there. It's much the same scenario when a couple attempts to induce lactation together.

It's worth a note here that the necessity for affection, touch, reassurance and nurturing to boost the release of oxytocin is also the reason that I don't recommend a couple use a breast pump more than once per day if they're attempting to induce. Sure, the mechanics are there, and the prolactin release from nipple stimulation will occur, even marginally, but without the corresponding oxytocin release triggered by her partner's affection, cuddling and touch, milk production and eventual milk let-down is difficult. Many people don't understand this and feel that the insert-part-A-into-slot-B technical approach of nipple stimulation, whether from a breast pump or by a partner, should be enough. The truth is, it usually isn't, and this remnant of evolution is simply the way Mother Nature designed women. When an infant is put to the breast, mother intuitively snuggles the infant close, creating skin-to-skin contact, and the baby reflexively reaches out to clasp the breast in his little hands, creating an oxytocin surge and helping to initiate milk let-down. Touch from a partner works the same way; a breast pump does not.

There are other variables which can significantly impact an attempt to induce lactation, including menopause, the use of oral contraceptives and some anti-depressants, and certain medical conditions such as polycystic ovarian syndrome, but because these topics are so vast, I have chosen not to address the specifics here. If any of you have a relevant question, I'd be glad to answer it by e-mail.

In my own experience, and in many of the couples I've worked with, the trust and intimacy which developed as they began the journey of sharing her breasts had no equal; time, nurturing, affection, communication and gentle support are the mileposts along the way.

The Necessity of Touch

The Human Touch

By Robert W. Hatfield, Ph.D.

University of Cincinnati, Department of Psychology

It has not been usual for the majority of college-level Human Sexuality texts to discuss the topic of touch except in the most cursory of descriptions. Most of these texts do not have the word touch in their index. Few have more than a page or two on the subject. This is dismaying, for a couple of reasons. The most obvious is that the expression of much of our sexuality occurs through touch and the largest organ of our body is our skin. Also, there is a growing body of writings, theory, and research in the field of touch that is of extreme importance to the studies of human development, health, and sexuality. The contributors to this body of work span the fields of philosophy, medicine, physiology, psychology, sociology, and anthropology. This chapter is a summary and synthesis of this work, with a special emphasis on the findings related to touch and human sexuality.

Touch and Relationships: Prescott found that societies low in affectionate touch are the most violent on this fragile planet. A paucity of brain nourishing touch causes neurological atrophy and increased violence toward others, property, and self. The most deprived and violent individuals in these societies prey on the weakest and most vulnerable of its members; women and children, in almost all cases inflicting upon their victims "touch trauma" in the forms of physical abuse, sexual manipulation and sexual violence. We know that abuse victims are much more likely to become abusers themselves (Belsky, 1978; Blount & Chandler, 1979). It is less publicized that abuse victims are most likely to abuse themselves and struggle throughout their lives with anger, depression, anxiety, and failed relationships. Prescott found that the touch deprived are more likely to become dependent on drugs and alcohol (1975, 1980), perhaps in search of the pleasure and serenity that physical affection brings. He also discovered that touch deprived people have more difficulty discriminating between pleasure and pain. They are more likely to engage in self-destructive conduct, and have more serious problems with behaviors that are innately pleasurable, such as affectionate touch and sexual behaviors.

The gradual destruction of this brain tissue by the effects of touch deprivation results in a predictable syndrome of behaviors (Prescott, 1975, 1980), as well as disrupted emotions and interpersonal relations. In fact, it has been proposed that many of the symptoms that clinicians observe in their psychotherapy clients and patients are the direct result of malfunctioning areas of the brain which have been damaged by touch deprivation. Prescott has labeled the constellation of neuropsychological deficits described in this chapter the Somatosensory Affectional Deprivation (SAD) syndrome. As research in this area continues, this syndrome will likely be more precisely defined as a formal diagnostic category.

Harlow's discoveries that his isolated and touch deprived primates developed in highly predictable and bizarre patterns certainly have relevance to human emotions and relationships. Harlow's primates over-reacted to most situations and engaged in a depressive withdrawal to the others. Almost none of their responses to common stimulation and situations were normal. They were hyperaggressive and unable to form adequate relations with other monkeys when reintroduced to their group. Highly unusual sexual responses were typical. They were unable to perform sexually and found it exceedingly difficult to locate a receptive partner for their inadequate attempts at quieting their sexual impulses and drives. In adulthood, they were completely inadequate and abusive partners and parents. Throughout their lives, they engaged in strange stereotyped movements and behaviors that isolated and set them apart from their group. These pathetic touch deprived primates demonstrated a high level of aversion to any form of touch from others. Their usual response to appropriate touch by other monkeys vacillated between fearful and aggressive. The review of all touch research to date leads to the inescapable conclusion that Harlow's primate research has provided us with a highly useful human model of the behavioral impact of touch deprivation.

Bowlby and Ainsworth's longitudinal research clearly shows that the inadequately attached child will usually grow to be an isolated and depressed adolescent and adult. The anxiously attached offspring develops into an anxious, attention-seeking, angry, and unhappy teen and adult. Both types have an exceedingly difficult time forming or maintaining healthy relations with anyone.

The growing number of biological studies are reporting findings that show that affectionate touch is an essential "nutrient" to normal brain functioning. They have found that permanent neurological deterioration occurs in several important areas of the brain when the large, richly enervated organ, our skin, fails to receive affectionate touch and send those signals to our brain. Missing, exaggerated, muted, or otherwise distorted perceptions and responses present a barrier to adequate human functioning at all levels.

If these sequellae of touch deprivation were minor or rare, it would be cause for only mild concern. However, available sociological and anthropological studies tell us that touch deprivation and all the associated problems, disorders, and brain damage is exceedingly severe and common. In some societies, such as the U.S., these difficulties affect a large majority of its citizens. Of particular concern are the indications that, within many cultures such as the U.S., the described problems are growing worse. For example, if violent behaviors such as murder, rape, spouse abuse, incest, and child abuse are, in some part, an expression of the neurological damage which results from touch deprivation (i.e., neglect and abuse of children), then there can be no doubt that a degenerating and dangerous pattern exists. It may not be an overstatement to say that brain damaged adults are creating brain damaged children at an ever-increasing rate in some cultures. The very thing that these adults most hunger for (due to their own experience of deprivation) is the response they are least capable (due to neurological and psychological damage) of adequately enjoying; affectionate touch and relationships.

Touch and sex and solutions: Relative to the other human senses, touch is the most difficult to study (Schutte et al., 1988). Of course this is largely due to the size and dispersion of the system. Compared to touch, it is relatively easy for the experimental researcher to, for example, blind a rat, study the rat's behavior, and be somewhat accurate in the observations regarding the likely effects of blindness on rat behavior. Similarly, it will be easier for the clinical researcher to study the effects of blindness on such things as self-concept, locus of control, and propensities to certain psychopathologies, such as depression. And, the social researcher could investigate the impact of blindness on social systems, or the relations of the blind to their sighted and unsighted social networks.

But what methodologies can be employed to isolate touch for useful studies? Even if there exists a tiny area of the rat brain that we could easily cauterize to eliminate the sense of touch, we know that confounding interactions due to other sensory losses (such as proprioception, the sense of movement) would be exceedingly difficult to isolate and study. The studies reported in this chapter have historically been late in their appearance for several reasons, not the least of which is the relative difficulty of the endeavor of touch research.

There is an old bromide that, "If the only tool you own is a hammer, then everything needs to be hammered." It is a good saying because it reminds professionals that we often tend to be reductionists regarding our specialty areas. To the psychologist, the world is psychological. To the surgeon the world is tissue and bone. To the poet the world is a rainbow or a dungeon. And so on... As the sciences evolve, it will become increasingly important for the researcher to understand the neural substrata of human behavior. Just as the speech therapist works to behaviorally "rewire" the brain of the stroke victim, psychologists must better understand the locations and extent of neural disorders so that they can develop more effective therapies that go beyond the analysis of behavior and cognition.

As an example, the writer often refers his partnerless and isolated psychotherapy clients to a masseuse or massage therapist whenever appropriate. Couples in treatment are usually instructed and assigned touch and massage homework exercises, even for the non-sex therapy clients. Although Masters and Johnson borrowed extensively from researched therapy techniques developed by others when constructing their broad sex therapy treatment regimen, the unique technique they called Sensate Focus (Masters & Johnson, 1970) was one of their most important contributions. Perhaps unknowingly borrowing from the treatment methods of physical therapists and speech therapists who deal with their patient's neurological damage, Masters and Johnson devised a method of graduated, lengthy, and redundant touch exercises for their patients.

The neurological damage discussed in this chapter is, by definition, permanent damage since the brain produces no new nerve cells beyond about age five. Fortunately, if the neurological damage is not too severe, the remaining healthy portions of the brain may be "taught" to recover functioning given the appropriate treatment method. The highly motivated individual or couple can begin to engage in specific graduated and frequent touch exercises to improve receptivity, sensation, and functioning. Masters and Johnson and the large body of subsequent sex therapy research provides potentially important solutions to a large and multi-axial problem for those individuals and societies who seek answers to repairing the damage. Of course, the most obvious solution would be to change the childrearing practices of those same individuals and societies. To say, "All we need is to be receptive and affectionate with our children", though correct, may miss the greatest obstacle to this major change. That most parents are not neurologically receptive to reciprocal affectionate touch with their child is only one, though important, dilemma.

An obstacle to affection: This research review leads to an important question; "Why are some cultures so aversive to affectionate touch, and so over-involved with touch violence?" (Thayer, 1987). What could possibly interfere with so powerful and basic a hunger as touch; one that appears so inherently rewarding? According to another body of research, one answer is the same we can insert to explain many cultural differences (e.g., Allinsmith et al., 1978; Bock et al., 1983; Bullough, 1976; Burkett, 1977; Clouse, 1972; Gorsuch, 1984; Hatfield, 1986; Kinsey et al., 1948, 1953; Landers, 1990; Neufeld, 1979; Notzer et al., 1984; Reiss, 1964, 1965; Tronick et al., 1990). The word is "philosophy." As Bill Dember pointed out (1974), cultural philosophies have been known to lead to an seemingly endless variety of bizarre and disgraceful behaviors such as cannibalism, human sacrifices, the carnage of war, nuclear proliferation, misogyny, slavery, torture, rape as reward to soldiers, racial hatred, etc., etc. Surely a philosophy can also strongly influence the touch behaviors of a culture (Weber, 1990). And, surely, one does. The dominant philosophy in the U.S. is our own brand of the Judeo-Christian ethic. At the risk of offending, our country was founded by religious zealots of Europe, many of whom were social outcasts of their own communities due to their rigid authoritarian belief systems which they felt compelled to foist upon their neighbors. America became the Promised Land to them and simultaneously the ideal "dumping ground" for their governments. Cheap and free boat rides to the "New World" were common.

In its most rigid and fundamentalist form, the Judeo-Christian philosophy is staunchly anti-touch, anti-body, anti-pleasure, and anti-sexual. To our not so distant ancestors the formula "Touch=Sex=Sin" was a bromide to live by. This non-equation is now our cultural heritage in the U.S. Some may argue that this is an overstatement of the present-day importance of a dying or changing philosophy. Some may feel a bit smugly insulated because their upbringing did not include a highly fundamentalist or highly orthodox religiosity.

One of the outcomes of prolonged touch deprivation and the resulting neurological deterioration, is a hypersensitivity to touch. Some researchers (e.g., Prescott, 1975) propose that the average person's experience with affectionate touch in the U.S. and several other countries is so inadequate that it is almost a certainty the majority of the citizens suffer from some degree of significant neurological impairment. This is especially true if you are male, since males in the U.S. tend to receive far less affectionate touch from birth than do females (Hewitt & Feltham, 1982; Juni & Brannon, 1981; Kennell, 1990; Major, 1990). By early adulthood most of these males have as much or more experience with overstimulating, aversive, painful, and traumatic touch than with soothing and affectionate touch. Even though they move through life with a growing touch hunger, most of these males can tolerate prolonged physical contact with another human only if forced, or if they are sexually aroused.

So, the cultural philosophy that may have initiated our ancestor's avoidance of touch may not be as important a maintaining factor as some might believe. It is possibly not the direct impact of religious philosophies today that causes a culture to be relatively touch-phobic, but rather, a long history of parents who, due to the neurological damage unknowingly inflicted by their parents, were hypersensitive to touch and therefore did not nurture their offspring with the necessary somatosensory stimulation. Very highly religious homes tend to provide significantly less affectionate touch (and more punishing touch) beginning in late childhood as the child approaches puberty and more overt sexuality (Hatfield, 1986; Neufeld, 1979). For many adults highly fundamentalist religions probably become an attraction for those who are most touch and sex phobic. The child of the high religiosity parent or parents will likely experience significantly more difficulty with affectionate touch and sexuality in their adult relationships, even if the offspring no longer subscribes to their parents' beliefs (Hatfield, 1986).

A Private Unofficial, "study" of ANR

Understanding ANR

by Mayfieldflowerrn

This was a very difficult post for me to write, not because I have difficulty speaking of these parallel desires which I've come to recognize over months of discussion, but because I wanted very much to get the implications right, to come to all of you with good information, well-read and fully aware of the dynamics which combine to create the desire for ANR as we know it. I hope, in this humble attempt, that I've allowed the more hidden, secretive facets of ANR to be brought more completely into the open, and perhaps initiated a discussion or two which will allow us all to become more authentic, true to ourselves and to these unique, beautiful, soul-filling desires which combine to create a very precious and sacred intimacy.

(First, a disclaimer. In my writing here, unless specified otherwise, all references to an adult nursing relationship are intended to include only those monogamous, heterosexual, intimate relationships between two adults which are centered upon a man regularly suckling his woman partner, either in an extended dry-nursing scenario or by fully sharing her milk. While I realize there are other types of adult nursing relationships, I've never discussed them at length nor been drawn to them personally, thus I cannot speak with relevance as to the ways intimacy may or may not be expressed between those partners.)

As the months have passed since I created this blog dedicated to ANR, I've been intrigued by the many, many correspondences and discussions which have begun here, both with men and with women, about the reasons and ways we are drawn to this lifestyle, and how the desire first manifested itself within us. Some people are able to name the specific ways in which ANR draws them, while others are not, but regardless of that, I have found there to be a number of separate and very definite characteristics of nursing couples which seem to universally coexist alongside their need to share a breast-centric relationship.

I sometimes refer to my own longing to share my breasts as exactly that, a longing, a desire. The truth, however, is that it's not so much a simple desire as it is an enduring physical need for me, a need nearly as essential to my being as is breathing or nourishment. To take away my ability to draw my man close to my breasts and nurse him there would be akin to stripping away the very essence of my femininity, and I would die slowly inside, no longer feeling that lovemaking or intimacy held any authenticity for me.

During my marriage, my ex-husband refused to share my breasts. He likewise was incapable of desiring me as a woman after I became pregnant with our son and, when I left, I vowed that I would never again settle for less than a loving, complete relationship which wholly fulfilled me, emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, and physically, and wherein the commitment we both made to consecrate the act of nursing together served to anchor and define our lovemaking. Yes, there are many other ways to share intimacy, and I embrace nearly all of them, but the truth remains that the essence of my sexuality, and certainly the origins of intimacy, both foreplay and lovemaking, all begin and end at my breasts.

So what are these parallel desires which, from my conversations, seem to universally exist to one degree or another within the majority of individuals who innately are drawn to share an adult nursing relationship?

I was not at all surprised to discover that the most common theme woven into their desire is a strong, perhaps undeniable, attraction to pregnancy. For her, there may have been an incredibly sexual and sensual undercurrent to pregnancy, and she perhaps discovered newfound joy and satisfaction in her body during those months. Desire was heightened, especially in the second and third trimesters, and she reached orgasm more easily and more frequently. As for him, he may have always recognized in himself an innate gravitation to the pregnant female form, and in his past may even have collected pregnancy erotica in various forms, be that literature or photographs or even mainstream pornography. Now, in a relationship with the flesh and blood woman who carries his child, there exists for him an almost primal desire to explore her pregnant body, a seeming obsession with her changing, growing curves and ripe, full breasts and the round sphere of her belly. Watching her move and seeing her pregnant silhouette leaves him breathless, and longing, yet he soon discovers there to be an equal new tenderness in his desire and an instinctive need to protect both her and the child within.

In my work, I notice a calm centeredness about these couples, for not only do they experience pregnancy together as a bonding, intimate, freely sexual time of exploration, but the intimacy seems to extend into the weeks after their child is born, where it lingers and flourishes. He is tenderly attentive, willing not only to spend time at her breast helping to bring in her milk or relieve any early experiences of engorgement, but also to hold her close and cherish her while she quietly breastfeeds their child. From this most pure act of loving, ANR evolves spontaneously, and this foundation, the innate attraction to pregnancy, has universally been present in the large majority of my conversations about ANR, as well.

The next two themes, as difficult as they may be to approach, seem also to be heavily represented in discussions about ANR. I've thought about the why of this at length, and ultimately I feel that the anonymity offered in this space has allowed people to open up to me in conversation where otherwise they may have not, to confess secrets and attractions and desires without the risk of personal rejection or judgment.

First, among men who are drawn to nursing relationships, there seems to be a correlation, not as heavily represented as the attraction to pregnancy yet a majority just the same, between the desire to engage in the act of nursing with a lover and anal sexual intimacy in some form or another. No, I don't mean heavy bondage or kink or some fringe means of sadomasochistic experimentation. I refer instead to a healthy, nurturing sexuality between lovers, intimacy which mirrors a nursing relationship in the elements of trust and vulnerability.

For one man, it was an inexplicable desire to be spanked, to be turned over his lover's knee and paddled, then drawn tenderly to her breast and comforted afterward. For others, the attraction is in actual penetration, of him by her, in a way which allows him to explore his vulnerable side, to experience the sensation of being filled and open and to submit to her direction, her sexual whims as it were, and to relinquish control. Whereas in mainstream relationships, the risk of confessing to this desire for anal intimacy would perhaps be received with scorn and ultimately might provoke a discussion which questioned the very core of a man's inherent sexuality, in the ANR world it belongs more in an organic place of tenderness, of trust and vulnerability, not unlike his admitting that first longing to be gently nursed and comforted at her breast.

So, over time, as more and more of my discussions included hints of desire for this type of anal intimacy, and it became evident that the same type of male personality who longed for ANR also appeared to hold an unspoken desire to explore anal sexual stimulation for himself in one form or another, I became curious about the basis of it and began wandering, looking first to my own textbooks in lactation and psychology, and finally perusing the broad world of cyberspace. After hours of reading, I ultimately focused on Freud, and his psychosocial stages of child development.

From birth to about eighteen months of age, infants exist in Freud's "oral" stage, where suckling and oral stimulation function as the primary pleasure mechanism. This is followed for another eighteen to twenty-four months by Freud's "anal" stage, where the young child first becomes aware of his genitals, and then toilet training is stressed heavily, often by the mother who loves and nurtures the child and to whom he is emotionally bonded. One cannot help but wonder if those men who are drawn to ANR and to parallel anal intimacy experienced a loss of some sort during these crucial overlapping developmental stages, perhaps an event as simple as forced weaning or a change in the child's primary caregiver. From this loss, his longing to return to a safe place became magnified, and the missing of the oral comforts which he had known since birth and the desire to return to the warmth of the breast and to be suckled somehow triggered an equal need to test the boundaries of Freud's anal stage. In this way, the desire for anal intimacy parallel to an adult nursing relationship is not so much regressive, but rather a need to return to that original safe maternal home and be cared for there, to be vulnerable and exposed but likewise reassured, and thus made safe.

The second difficult theme centers solely upon terminology in the ANR world, and, truth be told, this has been the most difficult of the parallel desires to write about. For a young child, the terms "Mama" and "Daddy" come to represent very specific securities. Mama is the nurturer, the comforter, the holder of all things soft and reassuring and safe. Daddy is the protector and sometimes the punisher, an external and distant yet approving (or disapproving) presence. In child psychology, it is well-documented that a child's first sexual response centers upon these familiar figures, and even in society at large we recognize that, on a subconscious level, men commit to wives who remind them of their mothers, and women marry men like their fathers. The difference in an ANR relationship is that these roles carry forward well into adult sexuality, where men ache to be drawn to "Mama's" breast and comforted and where women embrace that nurturing role, and where "Daddy," the adult man to whom they now are married and in whom they likely witness many, many traits inherent to their own fathers, protects them and keeps them safe, thus it is he they wish to please.

I have yet to have a discussion in the ANR world in which this specific topic wasn't preceded by a disclaimer, that he doesn't really desire his mother, that she never would imagine having sex with her father. In my very open mind, the disclaimer is unnecessary, for it is clear to me that it's the trait wherein the attraction lies and not the individual. For him, the longing for a nursing relationship centers upon the breasts, upon receiving from his wife the love and nurturing and comfort that men cannot ask for outright in our macho-centric society, and to receive that love in a place where he is momentarily able to set aside society's masculine conditions of control and power, dominance and responsibility. For her, psychology suggests that the desire is a bit deeper, that as a small child she couldn't understand why Daddy hugged and kissed Mama with a different, more expressive intimacy than he hugged and kissed her. She longed for that same special, unique love, "Daddy's" love, yet in a very innocent way, the only way her still-forming sexual psyche could receive it. Yes, issues like incest, rape or violence change the dynamic of this, but those don't belong in this discussion, for the desire for nurturing and safety within a nursing relationship originates in a much purer, organic, holistic place, a place of comfort and warmth and love and being protected, and it follows that adults in a nursing relationship could easily intertwine these maternal and paternal roles into their shared sexual intimacy.

This was a very difficult post for me to write, not because I have difficulty speaking of these parallel desires which I've come to recognize over months of discussion, but because I wanted very much to get the implications right, to come to all of you with good information, well-read and fully aware of the dynamics which combine to create the desire for ANR as we know it. I hope, in this humble attempt, that I've allowed the more hidden, secretive facets of ANR to be brought more completely into the open, and perhaps initiated a discussion or two which will allow us all to become more authentic, true to ourselves and to these unique, beautiful, soul-filling desires which combine to create a very precious and sacred intimacy.