Time magazine cover

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
The fact is that in America toplessness was fine and dandy until the Christians arrived. Religion is the reason it has become a forbidden fruit, not actual modesty or sexuality.

Well, if you're talking about native americans, then I guess you'd be right, but our culture isn't based off of native culture. I doubt you could find a 'western' culture in the last 3000 years where walking around topless was the norm. Again, I've got no problem with women walking around topless (quite the opposite, actually), but it's a little insincere to imply that concealing the breasts in a new phenomenon
 
This always comes up with this topic. I guess it's difficult for women to understand, but breasts most certainly are sexual to a man. They might not be primary sexual organs, but they are definitely secondary. A man's testicles aren't sexual in the same sense, but we wouldn't expect to see them hanging out all over the place either

I'm a woman and I understand what you mean. Furthermore I don't disagree.

Female breasts do have a sexual aspect to them because of the way that we have been socialized. It's of little relevance what tribes in Africa do - we are not them, nor are our culture and social norms the same.

Furthermore, if we insist that breasts are NOT sexual, then by logical extension, a man who gropes me by grabbing and squeezing my breasts is neither sexually harassing nor sexually assaulting me. That is why you will see a pretty expansive body of law on the topic of whether breasts are indeed sexual organs or whether they are mere mammary glands.

That's to say nothing of breast feeding in public - I've always seen women covered up and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. Baby's gotta eat and we can't expect these women to be prisoners in their home lest they offend somebody's sensibilities.
 
I love it when people who don't want women to breastfeed in a restaurant suggest that they do it in the bathroom.

Yes, because who doesn't love to have their meals in a public restroom?
 
I think we should setup separate establishments for breastfeeding. Bed and Breastfeeds. We could make a killing on this idea, you guys.
 
Furthermore, if we insist that breasts are NOT sexual, then by logical extension, a man who gropes me by grabbing and squeezing my breasts is neither sexually harassing nor sexually assaulting me. That is why you will see a pretty expansive body of law on the topic of whether breasts are indeed sexual organs or whether they are mere mammary glands.

Very good point (and the rest of your post was spot on, too).

I do agree with ladyfreckles that the way people freak out over breasts sometimes in our culture is stupid and nuts, though.
 
Should also add, "grabbing" anyone where they do not want to be grabbed is assault, period. Being topless wouldn't change that, and the location of where you are grabbed should not change that either. I don't really think having a guy grab your breasts counts as sexual assault, it's more of an unwarranted advance (and yes, this has actually happened to me before). If the guy keeps bothering you after you tell him to bug off, it's harassment. There are plenty of people that have fetishes for non-sexual body parts.

And our culture, which we base every other aspect of our lives on, deems breasts to be sexual. There's no point bringing up other cultures. We are our own culture. It doesn't make one right and the other wrong. They're just different. Breasts are absolutely sexual in our culture. And that's ok. Other cultures walk around with their dicks hanging out, but I don't see anyone fighting for that

This exact argument has been used to defend racism and slavery. Banning women from being topless in public, or breast feeding in public, is a sexist issue. As for the past 3,000 years thing in your other post, you are again wrong. Toplessness was actually a form of fashion back in the 1600s-1700s. Dresses were designed as such (this was regional, but it was in western culture). It wasn't until the 1800s that it started to be really looked down upon.
 
As for the past 3,000 years thing in your other post, you are again wrong. Toplessness was actually a form of fashion back in the 1600s-1700s. Dresses were designed as such (this was regional, but it was in western culture).

Site a source then.
 
and the location of where you are grabbed should not change that either. I don't really think having a guy grab your breasts counts as sexual assault

So you're not going to distinguish between someone grabbing your arm and someone grabbing your breast for the sake of your argument? Ridiculous
 
Banning women from being topless in public, or breast feeding in public, is a sexist issue.

There's nothing sexist about what we're talking about. Nobody is asking for a ban. But it doesn't mean we need to see a woman's baby slobbering all over her breasts when we're at the Olive Garden. Be discrete
 
AchtungBono said:
Sure breastfeeding is beautiful and natural......and so is having sex - when will we see couples having sex on the cover of "Field and Stream"? Where will it end?
But it's only beautiful when you CHOOSE the opposite sex right?

So maybe the baby can CHOOSE not to eat?

Otherwise that would be a great analogy.

AchtungBono said:
Where's the modesty? Why can't the mothers drape a towel or blanket over themselves to cover up? It wasn't necessary for them to be vulgar to make a point.
Try eating under a blanket in the summer, and let me know how you enjoy it.
 
Should also add, "grabbing" anyone where they do not want to be grabbed is assault, period. Being topless wouldn't change that, and the location of where you are grabbed should not change that either. I don't really think having a guy grab your breasts counts as sexual assault, it's more of an unwarranted advance.

The location matters because sexual assault and assault can be treated differently under criminal legislation.

And no, having somebody grab your breasts is not harassment, it's battery.
 
There's nothing sexist about what we're talking about. Nobody is asking for a ban. But it doesn't mean we need to see a woman's baby slobbering all over her breasts when we're at the Olive Garden. Be discrete

That is not what I'm saying at all. In a restaurant even men are required to shirt up. However, in a place like a park or a beach I could not care less if a woman is fully exposed and feeding a child. I honestly don't care. From the arguments I've seen about public breast feeding it sounds like it's only modest if the entire infant and the breast is covered in a blanket, which is just ridiculous. Even in the photo of the two air force women, neither of them are really over-exposed.

irrelevant. If we were to start catering to every fetish, you'd have to show ID to get into a shoe store

That's exactly my point. If we require by law women to cover up every body part that can possibly be deemed sexual, we'd all be covered from head to toe.


Site a source then.

I learned about this in high school/college through textbooks and library mediums (aka not online sources). However there are specific terms for it.

Décolletage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of underclothes (Book, 1992) [WorldCat.org] One of the books I've read that discusses this.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

http://www.amazon.com/Customs-Cultures-Anthropology-Christian-Missions/dp/0060661100 And this is one of the books I've read on it.


I refuse to engage in such hyperbole. Your argument just jumped off a bridge. I'll expect to see a Hitler reference in your next post

It's not hyperbole. "This is what our culture deems acceptable, and it's just not acceptable for blacks to be on a bus, it doesn't matter if that's allowed in other countries" has been used before. Back during the civil war similar arguments were used to defend the idea of slaves by saying it wasn't abusive because they were nice to them/here the slaves are just part of a culture/etc.
 
I learned about this in high school/college through textbooks and library mediums (aka not online sources). However there are specific terms for it.

Décolletage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of underclothes (Book, 1992) [WorldCat.org] One of the books I've read that discusses this.

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Amazon.com: Customs and Cultures: Anthropology for Christian Missions (9780060661106): Eugene A. Nida: Books And this is one of the books I've read on it.

Fair. And good on you for finding some sources. But even then, in the course of history, it was still a somewhat obscure fashion trend (again, I'm not opposed to going back to these styles if you ladies are on board)
 
That's exactly my point. If we require by law women to cover up every body part that can possibly be deemed sexual, we'd all be covered from head to toe.

But we have to go back to what society deems sexual. I can't hang my ass out and walk around either
 
It's not hyperbole. "This is what our culture deems acceptable, and it's just not acceptable for blacks to be on a bus, it doesn't matter if that's allowed in other countries" has been used before. Back during the civil war similar arguments were used to defend the idea of slaves by saying it wasn't abusive because they were nice to them/here the slaves are just part of a culture/etc.

You're equating not being able to show your breasts in public (which you are where I live) with an entire race of people being enslaved and treated as 3rd rate human beings. That's hyperbole. It's a disservice to your argument
 
:up:

Also wanted to add that I'm a fairly "modest" person. I'm not the kind of person that would go around topless (heck, in over 95% of my shirts and dresses you can't see cleavage), it's just that I believe other women who do want to do that should have the right to.
 
That is not what I'm saying at all. In a restaurant even men are required to shirt up. However, in a place like a park or a beach I could not care less if a woman is fully exposed and feeding a child. I honestly don't care. From the arguments I've seen about public breast feeding it sounds like it's only modest if the entire infant and the breast is covered in a blanket, which is just ridiculous. Even in the photo of the two air force women, neither of them are really over-exposed.

We're probably closer on this subject than either of us realize. My problem is not so much with the actions, but with the justifications (ie It's natural. It's beautiful. Breasts aren't sexual).
That said, I still think discretion should be exercised. And not even for myself; I just know it makes a lot of people uncomfortable and there's no need to be so in-your-face about it.
 
Of course breasts are sexual- but they are and have to be 100 % of the time, during any and all circumstances? For me it's the shaming and sexualization of breast feeding that's troubling. I'll probably regret asking this :wink:, but is that picture a turn on? Or the Time picture? Breasts as sexual can be separated from breasts as feeding a child, no? Unless you have some sort of breastfeeding fetish, as mentioned here before by ..99.9 percent probability it was .. dreadsox. Not that he had one, but he knew of it. Yeah, that's it...

The women I have seen breastfeed in public do it discreetly. I've never seen anyone breastfeed twins at the same time but logistically I imagine that would be tough period. Not to mention tough to be discreet. That military photo is exaggerated for effect, just like the Time photo. I like the military photo because it shows two distinct aspects of women-the tough and the tender.

Testicles can't feed a baby, obviously. If they could I'm sure guys wouldn't walk around doing it with them just hanging out for the world to see and 'ogle'. I'm sure they would be more discreet about it. Well, maybe not all of them :D
 
Of course breasts are sexual- but they are and have to be 100 % of the time, during any and all circumstances? For me it's the shaming and sexualization of breast feeding that's troubling. I'll probably regret asking this :wink:, but is that picture a turn on? Or the Time picture? Breasts as sexual can be separated from breasts as feeding a child, no? Unless you have some sort of breastfeeding fetish, as mentioned here before by ..99.9 percent probability it was .. dreadsox. Not that he had one, but he knew of it. Yeah, that's it...

To be 100% honest, I think this is probably where some of the uncomfortableness comes in to play. It's impossible to completely desexualize breasts (for me anyway and I assume for a lot of men), so there's probably a little bit of shame on the man's part for even having a flash sexual thought. Am I turned on by the pictures? No. Did I notice the breasts and on some level *ahem* evaluate them? Yes ma'am. It's impossible not to. Military mom on the left? c'maaaan. So there must be, in most men, a bit of an internal conflict between what we think is sexual and what we know is kinda weird to be thinking of as having any sexual aspect.

/perv'd
 
I fully admit that I notice and recognize beautiful natural breasts, most likely because I've never had any. My evaluate would probably be are those real and spectacular or are they fake. But to me noticing them and being like "wow" isn't the same as sexualizing. I can notice a beautiful looking man, but it's not always and not automatically sexual. If I saw some beautiful shirtless guy with his child, honestly at first I'd probably be thinking "aww" then I might be thinking other. Even without a child, it's not some automatic sexual thing. I think what I'm trying to say is that it can be an aesthetic thing without being sexual. So aesthetically the breasts might be considered beautiful, and nothing wrong with that. But they don't exist solely for sexual gratification. I do understand the whole dichotomy of it, but not making the leap to putting it on women and to shaming them.

For me the sexual/turn on part comes into play when anyone suggests that women should not be breastfeeding in public at all. Personally I think everything related to public display of body parts should be as discreet as possible/appropriate for the circumstance. But like anitram said, when a baby has to eat he/she has to eat. And if it comes to that, I'm not going to hold any woman responsible for anyone else's feelings or thoughts about it. In the end it's just a breast, we see far more displays of breast on a beach or sometimes at the mall. If she needs to "whip it out" and doesn't have the time to be discreet, well I think she should go right ahead and that we can handle it. To compare it to Playboy or to urinating and defecating in uniform, that's just ridiculous.
 
Back
Top Bottom