Are The Breasts For The Child Or The Spouse?: A Public Health Eyeballing Of The Debate

Permit me to employ a creative writing approach of a sort here. Are we not tired of the coldness of academic literature? They bore our eyes and stretched our minds. They seem to be friends with those who embrace the trade of erudite scholarship. Nonetheless, humanity would be ungrateful to appreciate how data-driven evidence, which the academy pours out, has contributed to the lot of humanity. Anyway, let’s stay focused on the matter at hand. Let me quickly add that the subject here will demand that, despite the class used, pockets of scholarly knowledge must be included. Now, let’s look at the issue of concern.

What is it about breasts that invites much attention? Perhaps, in the modern world, this is significantly due to the blessings of both clinical and population medicine that provide empirical evidence revealing that cancer of the breast is the leading cause of cancer in women, and has a clinical behaviour that warrants early diagnosis and “aggressive” management. The advocacy that accompanies this knowledge has contributed immensely to the popularity of the breast.

Whilst I refer to women here, breast cancer is essentially genderless. Of course, men also have breasts, but they are more developed and specialized in females, giving them an anatomical difference with associated physiological importance. Not to sound too science-oriented, but it is the presence of breasts (mammary glands) that made Carolus Linnaeus (1707-1778) place both women and men into the Class Mammalia in his system of classification of living things, even though men don’t lactate (produce milk from their breasts) to feed their offspring, a key point of consideration by Linnaeus. There is a paradox here. Let’s leave that for later. Well, the males of some species belonging to the Class Mammalia lactate under certain conditions.

Meanwhile, aware of what the modern world offers to “breast-talk,” throughout civilisations, breasts have inspired persons of diverse trades: philosophers, poets, scientists, and politicians. Shall I go ahead?

Two references will suffice for now. King Solomon, in all his wisdom, confesses: “Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.” Pablo Neruda, a poet with no mean pedestal in the world of literature, writes: “My two breasts, two flaming rosebuds, two firm papayas between which my heart is squeezed.” Let me not fail to remind you that Neruda was a Nobel Laureate and a politician. Let me also add in poetic rendering that: “We love to see you twirl up and about in health and wealth, you soothing hills, When we pass to the other side, you feel the most pain, the chest is beaten in sorrow, and you dance in agony to the dirge.”

Reflections about the breasts carry the sense of sexuality and motherhood. Against this backdrop, the argument about who will own the breasts emerges.

There may be another major feature of the debate that seems to have been pushed to the periphery. Women are very conscious of their breasts. It defines their beauty. Indeed, this contributes to the difficulty in getting the consent of breast cancer clients for mastectomy (surgical removal of the entire breast or part of the breast)—it can also be done as a preventive measure for women who have a high risk of breast cancer. They are concerned that it will disfigure them. The ingenuity of prosthetic breasts should have ameliorated this fear. We shall continue to create awareness. Therefore, the breast is also for the woman in the context of the debate because it contributes significantly to her self-image and, hence, mental health. The beautification of women by breasts fits into how the breast pleases the opposite sex.

Undoubtedly, the possession of breasts by women is one of the things that endears them to men. This reality contributes to the search for sexual partners; it even engenders love, leading to marriages and the raising of beautiful families. It is true that, per the admiration that breasts evoke, they are a place of comfort for the spouse.

It is not a point to belabor that breasts are symbolic of motherhood. They ebb with nourishment to nurture the newborn. It is as if they weep along by shedding tears of milk at the first cry of a baby. The first milk produced after childbirth under normal circumstances, colostrum, is very critical to the building of the immunity of newborn babies, being very rich in nutrients that the baby needs to thrive.

It is not for nought that the World Health Organization is very particular about breastfeeding. It is very important in the building of the health of populations. Failure to breastfeed well has consequences that transcend generations.

It is of immense importance that for the first six months, newborn babies are fed exclusively on breastmilk. The milk contains the necessary ingredients needed for the satisfaction and health of the child. It contains enough water. A mother is not doing her child any good if she gives him or her water in the first six months. Socio-cultural beliefs that undermine this fact impinge on the health of the public.

Exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months and complementary feeding at six months until about two years are integral to fighting underweight, and, in the long term, overweight and obesity, which are issues of public health importance. Without the critical role of the breasts that comes into reality through breastfeeding, our world will be full of populations with poorer health outcomes. Our society must preach breastfeeding with all its might.

It has become apparent so far that the breast has a tripartite responsibility. One, it defines the beauty, self-image of the female, and sexual differentiation. Two, it evokes attraction, love, and sexual desire in the opposite sex, leading to the fostering of love. Three, it characterises motherhood, primarily seen in the nurturing of children through breastfeeding, with long-term effects.

Without breasts, who suffers most? Who survives because of breasts? Let’s not even call Carolus Linnaeus, who classified humans as mammals because they possessed breasts that lactate to feed offspring, as a witness. Is it even necessary to want to learn from other species, who, to a very large extent, possess breasts just to feed their young ones? Need I go ahead to tell you overtly who, child or spouse, primarily owns the breast? Let me end here. Wisdom is not in an avalanche of words.

   Comments0