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.

ANR What? Huh?

Today's Sexual Eye-Opener

Wikipedia

Adult Nursing Relationship (ANR)

The suckling of milk from a female's breast on a regular basis from one or more partner(s). Successful ANRs depend on a stable and long-term relationship, as, otherwise it is very difficult to maintain a steady milk flow. Couples may begin an ANR by transferring regular suckling from a child to a sexual partner (eg. husband). Such a relationship may form as an expression of close intimacy and mutual tenderness and may even exist without sex.^[1] Breastfeeding can have a strong stabilizing effect on the partnership.^[1][10] The breastfeeding woman may experience orgasms or a pleasurable let-down reflex.

ANRs has also been employed in cases where a mother may desire to breastfeed her child, but has to find an alternative to inducing lactation.^[11] She may have difficulty beginning lactation, so supplements the infants's suckling with that of a partner. Or there are cases where breastfeeding was interrupted for an extended period of time as a result of infant prematurity, infant absence, or mother's illness (taking prescription medication).^[12] In such cases, adult nursing has often caused lactation to continue until it was possible for the child to resume breast feeding. Others may want to nurse an adopted child, so uses an ANR to stimulate breastmilk production before the adoption occurs. Though such scenarios do not have erotic motivations, erotic expression may be an additional aspect of the relationship.

Since the European Middle Ages, a multitude of subliminally erotic visionary experiences of saints have been passed on in which breastfeeding plays a major role. One prominent example is the Lactatio of Saint Bernard of Clairvaux.^[16] Generally speaking, this was a rather strong taboo, and it can be concluded that an adult man suckling for milk is in contradiction to well-established images of masculinity^{[citation needed]}.


There exists a very old story mostly called "Roman Charity" (or Caritas romana).^[17] This story is most known from old paintings showing a young woman suckling an old man who is imprisoned.
The story comes from the Roman writer Valerius Maximus in the year 14 AD - 37 AD. In about AD 1362 the story was retold by the famous writer Giovanni Boccaccio.^[18] After Boccaccio, hundreds or possibly thousands of paintings were created, which tell the story.
Primarily, the story tells of a conflict. An existing taboo (implied incest and adult breastfeeding of a woman's milk) or saving a life by breaking the taboo. In this aspect there is no erotic focus to the story.
Most interesting in context of erotic lactation is not the fact of nourishing a man from a woman's breast. More interesting is the following affair: Valerius Maximus tells two stories, not one only. There is first a long elaborated story with a woman breastfeeding her mother, which is followed by a very short story with a woman breastfeeding her father. The second father-daughter story in fact consists of one sentence only. Fifteen hundred years later Boccaccio retells the (first) mother-daughter story only and does not mention the father-daughter story. Nevertheless nearly all "caritas romana" oil paintings and drawings show the father-daughter story only. This fact changes the supposedly original background into an erotic direction and we can very clearly see the (erotic) fascination of the adult suckling situation for the artists, who created all the paintings.

Erotic lactation refers to an adult's sexual arousal from breastfeeding. Depending on the context, the terms adult suckling, adult nursing, and adult breastfeeding can refer to the practice. Practitioners sometimes refer to themselves as being in an adult nursing relationship (ANR).^[1] Two persons in an exclusive relationship can be called a nursing couple, though this term is also sometimes used for a mother and her child.
"Milk fetishism" and "lactophilia" are medical, diagnostic terms for paraphilias and are used for disorders according to the precise criteria of ICD-10 and DSM-IV.^[2]

Because female breasts and nipples are generally regarded as an important part of sexual activity in some cultures, it is not uncommon that couples may proceed from oral stimulation of the nipples to actual breastfeeding.^[6] In lesbian partnerships, mutual breastfeeding has been regarded as a familiar expression of affection and tenderness.^[7]
In its issue of March 13, 2005, the London weekly The Sunday Times gave a report of a scientific survey (composed of 1690 British men) revealing that in 25 to 33% of all couples, the male partner had suckled his wife's breasts. Regularly the men gave a genuine emotional need as their motive.^[8]

What's inside Capitalism: 'Competition'

MINE! MINE! MINE!

Forever Becoming

As an essential component of capitalist ideology, the idea of competition has been exaggerated and planted in the popular consciousness, its influence spreading beyond purely economic relations. To compete appears to be a natural thing to do.

In freeing man from the constraints of a rigid, stratified system, capitalism appeared to promote the idea of equality; man was free to define himself, and, importantly, to advance himself within society.

Yet, through pushing the idea of economic advancement the system also placed emphasis upon the notion of competition, setting one individual against another.

We’ve seen how the ideology of the marketplace can infiltrate numerous aspects of our life, making us conscious of what we are selling, and how well we are selling it.

This emphasis on selling inevitably promotes competitive relations, because in selling something - be it a skill, talent, idea or look - there will, more often than not, be others selling the same thing.

As an essential component of capitalist ideology, the notion of competition has suffused the popular consciousness, its influence spreading beyond purely economic relations.

To compete seems like a very natural thing to have to do, and we have Darwin’s Theory of Evolution to remind us that competition is in the natural way of things.

Yet, whilst it may be an inevitable aspect of human relations, it remains a singular aspect upon many. The emphasis that capitalism places upon this idea, and the way in which it is communicated to us can frequently be problematic.

In many instances a competitive mindset can invade relations beyond the economic, and can become a default mode of exchange where, often, it needn’t be.

When the objects of our desire are perceived as limited, it follows that to get what we want we will have to compete for it.

Whilst it may be the case that many things are by nature limited, it is often from the emphasis upon the necessity to compete that dysfunction can arise. Fromm describes the effects of a competitive mindset upon the individual.

“His relationship to his fellow men, with everyone a potential competitor, has become hostile and estranged; he is free – that is, he is alone, isolated, threatened from all sides.”

Advancement and Careerism

Whilst allowing the individual to flourish in formerly unthinkable ways, capitalism also unharnessed his urge for power and status.

Our gifts, the things that separate us - be it talent, beauty or intelligence – are instrumentalized, their function as occasions for celebration and communion seconded to their utility as tools of advancement.

State ideology urges its citizens to ‘be someone’, a fiction that is communicated and strengthened through stories of success.

This runs from from the everyday tale of achievement and victory featured in the pages of the local paper, through to the latest celebrity autobiography) and our worship of those who have ‘made it’ (celebrities; those who are top of their field; ‘geniuses’.

To progress economically and secure a favourable position within a free-for-all system, the individual is compelled to draw upon whatever resources allow him to achieve this.

In this sense, the gift – as long as it is valued by society – takes its place as an element of a wider tyranny; both reason, motivation, and justification for the attainment of power.

What's inside Capitalism: 'Success'

MORE! MORE! MORE!

Forever Becoming

Success becomes confused with market values. Success in all domains becomes defined by the ideology of the marketplace. Only a few turned up to your party, so it wasn't a success. You only have a few friends on Facebook, so you aren't a success.

The so-called freedom offered by capitalism has exposed the individual to the elements, making him feel isolated, insignificant and powerless. Unknown machinations were now taking place around him, the earth rumbling with the new momentum of free trade.

Market Orientation

For the individual capitalism offered the potential of a new and better life. His tethers cut, he was free to rise as high as he wished - but this privilege was not his alone.

The heights were up for grabs, and in order to gain the best view he would have to ensure that he rose higher than those around him.

The road to success – to the most advantageous view – was achieved through selling; if man could sell successfully then he was able to become successful.

Instead of selling enough to get along – to maintain an age-old lifestyle – he was prompted to sell as a means to advancement. No longer tied to his place, through selling more he could break with tradition and imagine something new.

With the best views exclusive, the individual was forced to consider his product within a marketplace that was both more expansive and more competitive.

Pious concerns were replaced with economic ones; everyday discourse coloured by the language and ideology of the marketplace. This state of affairs has reached its apotheosis in recent times.

If something does not sell successfully – if not enough people want it – then it is deemed as a failure. Within this ideology, quantity becomes a key determinant of success; the more people want something, the more successful it is.

The notion of success becomes confused with market-values, and success in all domains becomes defined by the ideology of the marketplace. Only a few people turned up to your party, so it was not a success. You only have a few friends, so you are not a success.

It is testament to the pervasiveness of capitalist ideology that we even come to think of ourselves as products, to be carefully crafted to sell to the highest number.

Market ideology pervades all aspects of life, its fiction transforming us into commodities, and our relations into a series of marketplaces within which we sell ourselves: as employees, as sex objects, as lovers, as friends.

The concept of the ‘glamour model’ is an obvious example; with her blonde hair, bronzed skin and practiced repertoire of facial expressions, she is as finely-tuned to sell to a specific market as the newest model of executive saloon.

She sells herself, and in doing so promotes to the masses the ‘look’ that she is selling – she tells us, on behalf of our collective ideology, ‘this is what the market wants, and this is how you sell yourself to it” - the market, in this instance, being ‘men’ - or at least, the State’s idea of men.

“Flesh is converted into sign”, the body “etched, pummelled, pumped up, shrunk and remoulded”18 in order to sell more effectively. Not only is the specific look of the glamour model pushed, but also the very idea that women must ‘sell’ in the first place, proliferating the mentality of the system.

In her role as a tool of the State, the glamour model serves to teach a generation of girls how to kit themselves out to become successful commodities in a competitive marketplace.

Market-orientation is not restricted to glamour-model clones.

Most of us, at points, feel the pressure to sell ourselves in some way; and with technology increasing the forms through which we communicate, it is also - as a recent article on a “narcissism epidemic” among young girls suggests - proliferating the places in which one is required to self-promote.19

With all this emphasis on selling, we begin to think of the conventions of the system as innate and unavoidable.

All motives become inextricably linked with selling and individual gain, and “what are you trying to sell?” becomes the permeating dictum. Our view of humanity is bent and twisted to fit a system that often works to encourage the worst.

What's inside Capitalism: 'Individualism'

ME! ME! ME! ME!

Forever Becoming

We have the illusion of individual freedom. Capitalism fears the consequences of individualism - greater self-awareness and challenging the system. Capitalism is more than happy to give us the freedom to consume but not the freedom to question.

The collapse of the static pre-capitalist system, in which every man was guaranteed a place, cast the future in shades of uncertainty. Man was free to define his destiny, and in order to safeguard it he was compelled to consider his prospects within the market.

Self-preservation became an important consideration, and careerism a defence against fear of the future. Within the capitalist system man was constantly urged to think of himself, if only to avoid coming a cropper further along the line.

Capitalism has promoted rampant self-interest, while simultaneously directing energies away from something that may have helped man to face his fear of the future: self-development.

Thus, we have the illusion of individual freedom. Capitalism as an ideology fears the consequences of individualism - greater self-awareness and challenging the system of thought that pervades our lives.

Capitalism is more than happy to give us the freedom to consume but not the freedom to question.

Self-Development

In ousting the individual from the bosom of society into a position of self-responsibility, capitalism marked a milestone in the psychological maturation of society.

It would perhaps be more accurate to say that capitalism provided the conditions for growth, laying the responsibility for development at the feet of the individual.

Many were simply not ready to accept this responsibility and instead of learning the new steps that were required of them, regained equilibrium through what Fromm refers to as ‘secondary bonds.’

Through these means the individual willingly annihilated himself within the whole, returning once more to a state of reliance.

We achieve self-annihilation in a variety of ways, not least through the denial of self-development. Perversely, self-development is perhaps the very thing that would allow us, following the severance of our primary bonds, a positive equilibrium once again.

But what do we mean when we talk of self-development? It involves, amongst other things, thinking about the self – about our beliefs, our ideas, our ambitions.

In thinking about these important things we are able to take responsibility for them, to make the thoughts our own, and thus counteract the assumptive ignorance of received wisdom. We are able to form a personal life-philosophy, regardless of how rudimentary it may be.

It does not mean a wrapping up within the self, or a constant state of navel gazing: self-development is not selfishness.

Rather, to think about the self is to learn to explore and understand the self – it is an affirmation of who you are.

To listen to what you need; to take time to know yourself, and to allow yourself the room to grow, is to turn out towards the world.

The Flight from Self-Development

Thinking about the self is often not a comfortable or easy thing to do, and fortunately the system provides us with a variety of ways in which we can avoid doing this.

The idea of self-development is itself denigrated through a widespread denial of the self, and through watchwords like ‘selfish’ and ‘self-indulgent’ that allow us to circumnavigate other words, like ‘self-analysis’.

We deny ourselves - our needs and development - in the interests of society; which, in the last, are the interests of the State.

A paradoxical smokescreen is put in place around this denial, with contemporary society seemingly placing more importance on the individual than at any time previously.

Ours is, we are frequently reminded, a selfish society: it is an old saw to point out that consumerism is rampant.

That we like nothing more than to spend on the latest commodities and indulge in hedonistic abandon, all the while moving further away from so called ‘traditional values’.

But what is really happening here? Is this fiction of the contemporary individual really about self-affirmation?

Perhaps what we are affirming is the pseudo-self; a safe assemblage of the self afforded to us by the system, replete with pre-ordained desires, opinions, and ambitions – that confuses its own voice with that of its maker.

Through its distractions - its motion - the system helps keep us from standing still too long, aiding us in our flight from the true self.

Work keeps us busy for a large proportion of our time, and when we aren’t busy with work we are offered a variety of activities to help maintain the momentum.

Through staying busy we are able to preserve a sense of self-identity that reflection dispels. When we are at work in the world we have a seeming solidity.

Without self-knowledge we remain unaware that our structures rest in water, and the confusion of the depths – with its promise to disorient and inspire - is kept from us.

These distractions are undoubtedly not, in most cases, crafted with this sinister purpose in mind; it is the systems into which they are birthed that are rigged for maximum manipulation.

It is the way that we are taught to consume, the compulsions that we learn unconsciously and take as givens – this is where the dysfunction lies.