New find: Bare Breasted Female Statue Harms Minors.

[sojourner]

It's a statue, it's a work of art first off. I don't think there should be any issue with posting a picture of it here, just like there shouldn't be any issue of posting a picture of Michelangelo's "David". Though mods are free to debate about that and correct me if I am wrong.

This is what we are talking about in its entirety:

I think it is supposed to speak to something here. Not only how she is viewing herself, but how she is letting others view her and what is the message this really sends about a woman? And this "godly" group wants to take it down because of breasts? As if children don't know what they are? As if seeing them on a statue will somehow "scar" them for life? Goodness forbid they ever see the "David". :cover:

What an ironic piece! Diminishing a woman to her various "parts" and then objectifying her. We find the statue "ugly" because of this. Objectification is ugly! And, more ironically, for a "morality" group to focus on one aspect of the piece further objectifies -- not only the statue, but womanhood.




Kansas. Go figure.

 

[ChristineES]

We Americanistanian menfolk are the only ones in the world who really likes to look at hooters?
Others don't lust after them? For once, I feel a twinge of pride in this country. But the ugly
ugly & costly statues like this one don't do it for me.

Now, here is a bare breasted statue that really inspires....

Well I didn't exactly say that. I think I was saying that the more someone sees them, the less offensive they might become. If I see a woman's breasts, I never have any thoughts of anything sexual. To me, they look like baby food or just some bumps. Because of that, I have a hard time understanding why men see them as sexual.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

What an ironic piece! Diminishing a woman to her various "parts" and then objectifying her. We find the statue "ugly" because of this. Objectification is ugly! And, more ironically, for a "morality" group to focus on one aspect of the piece further objectifies -- not only the statue, but womanhood.




Kansas. Go figure.

Excellent. :clap

Well I didn't exactly say that. I think I was saying that the more someone sees them, the less offensive they might become. If I see a woman's breasts, I never have any thoughts of anything sexual. To me, they look like baby food or just some bumps. Because of that, I have a hard time understanding why men see them as sexual.

Or women who are not heterosexual.

 

[ChristineES]

Excellent. :clap



Or women who are not heterosexual.

Them, too. After I posted it I realized that I forgot to say that.

 

[Skwim]

It's a statue, it's a work of art first off. I don't think there should be any issue with posting a picture of it here, just like there shouldn't be any issue of posting a picture of Michelangelo's "David". Though mods are free to debate about that and correct me if I am wrong.

This is what we are talking about in its entirety:

I think it is supposed to speak to something here. Not only how she is viewing herself, but how she is letting others view her and what is the message this really sends about a woman? And this "godly" group wants to take it down because of breasts? As if children don't know what they are? As if seeing them on a statue will somehow "scar" them for life? Goodness forbid they ever see the "David". :cover:

Thanks for having the courage to post the picture up front. Not that it needed to be done, but because it's integral to the story. Rightly or wrongly I've had my hands slapped too many times by mods to risk yet another one---I'm poor at anticipating what they find unacceptable.

And while we have the image up for all to see, I find it ironic that the American Family Association has gotten up in arms over the exposure of a secondary sexual characteristic (breasts) while ignoring the exposed vulva (mons pubis). Not that anyone should be aghast at seeing a vulva, but to me it seems this organization of self-righteous do-gooders has its priorities a bit screwed up (which doesn't come as any surprise).

 

[Twilight Hue]

It is strange that people are acting so unnaturally. It never ceases to amaze what pseudo-problems we create.

I suppose everyone needs a hobby.

 

[Muffled]

I am not sure why, but some people see them as sexual objects. When I was stationed in Naples, Italy, they showed bare breasts on tv commercials and women sometimes went topless on the beach and no one noticed except the Americans.

My town didn't have a statue like that but every family had a Sears and Roebuck catalog. Pubescent behavior is somewhat strange anyway but I can't say that I have ever departed from being interested.

If there is a cultural difference, perhaps it is in pretending not to notice and refraining from staring. Otherwise I tend to believe that European physiognomy isn't different from ours.

 

[Draka]

My town didn't have a statue like that but every family had a Sears and Roebuck catalog. Pubescent behavior is somewhat strange anyway but I can't say that I have ever departed from being interested.

If there is a cultural difference, perhaps it is in pretending not to notice and refraining from staring. Otherwise I tend to believe that European physiognomy isn't different from ours.

So, to you, everyone else that isn't a prude is really just "pretending" and "refraining from staring"? It couldn't possibly be that, in their culture, they have been raised to really not care? To see the breast as just another part of a woman, comparable to her arm or leg? That it is just as much acceptable as a man going without a shirt? Not every culture, every society, has the woman's breast been so weirdly sexualized into some perverse fun bag of pleasure to amuse. The only difference between a woman's breast and a man's is its basic nursing function for babies. That's it. Period.

 

[Muffled]

What an ironic piece! Diminishing a woman to her various "parts" and then objectifying her. We find the statue "ugly" because of this. Objectification is ugly! And, more ironically, for a "morality" group to focus on one aspect of the piece further objectifies -- not only the statue, but womanhood.




Kansas. Go figure.

I believe the Biblical concept is that a woman should be modestly dressed in public and the statue is in a public place and not modestly dressed. If the statue were in an art museum parents could use discretion about whether to take juveniles to it.

I believe it is very difficult to prove harm but it seems to me that with more of a concentration on sex in this country lately that the number of sexual perverts has increased.

 

[Muffled]

So, to you, everyone else that isn't a prude is really just "pretending" and "refraining from staring"? It couldn't possibly be that, in their culture, they have been raised to really not care? To see the breast as just another part of a woman, comparable to her arm or leg? That it is just as much acceptable as a man going without a shirt? Not every culture, every society, has the woman's breast been so weirdly sexualized into some perverse fun bag of pleasure to amuse. The only difference between a woman's breast and a man's is its basic nursing function for babies. That's it. Period.

I am saying that men generally have an interest in the female anatomy from pubescence. I can't say whether that is drummed out of them or not. I have heard that Italians like to pinch butts and the French like to say "oo la la."

 

[Father Heathen]

I believe the Biblical concept is that a woman should be modestly dressed in public and the statue is in a public place and not modestly dressed. If the statue were in an art museum parents could use discretion about whether to take juveniles to it.

I believe it is very difficult to prove harm but it seems to me that with more of a concentration on sex in this country lately that the number of sexual perverts has increased.

If people want to be prudes based on their own personal superstitious beliefs, that's fine, but they have no justification for attempting to impose censorship upon others. If people have silly insecurity issues with a piece of art, then they should simply avoid the park.

 

[Draka]

I am saying that men generally have an interest in the female anatomy from pubescence. I can't say whether that is drummed out of them or not. I have heard that Italians like to pinch butts and the French like to say "oo la la."

What if there is nothing to be "drummed out"? Has it not occurred to you that most of the reason that there even exists such fascinations with certain areas of the body is precisely because they are kept so covered and taboo? They are made into "naughty" parts and insinuated into being something more than they need be from early on. It is exactly this repression of expression, this attitude of "dress modestly" that actually encourages this idea that the body, and certain parts of it, is a dirty sexual thing. That upon uncovering it, it leads to moral decay and sexual transgressions of all sorts. If, on the other hand, a culture is inoculated against this line of thinking by not being ashamed of the body, by not having the restrictions of having to cover up certain areas and make them into "naughty parts", then they no longer become areas to be sexualized. The allure has been removed.

 

[fantome profane]

What if there is nothing to be "drummed out"? Has it not occurred to you that most of the reason that there even exists such fascinations with certain areas of the body is precisely because they are kept so covered and taboo? They are made into "naughty" parts and insinuated into being something more than they need be from early on. It is exactly this repression of expression, this attitude of "dress modestly" that actually encourages this idea that the body, and certain parts of it, is a dirty sexual thing. That upon uncovering it, it leads to moral decay and sexual transgressions of all sorts. If, on the other hand, a culture is inoculated against this line of thinking by not being ashamed of the body, by not having the restrictions of having to cover up certain areas and make them into "naughty parts", then they no longer become areas to be sexualized. The allure has been removed.

I think it should be understood that the over-sexualization of women's breasts is cultural. It is true that in many cultures there is not the same obsession we we in North America.

But that doesn't mean that a women's breasts are not attractive, in a sexual way. A healthy heterosexual male will find a healthy young women's breasts to be sexually attractive. You may want to think they are just baby feeders, but that is not reality either. It is natural for a heterosexual to be sexually attracted to the female bodies. It is the obsession, the fetishization of a particular body part that is unnatural.

 

[Draka]

I think it should be understood that the over-sexualization of women's breasts is cultural. It is true that in many cultures there is not the same obsession we we in North America.

But that doesn't mean that a women's breasts are not attractive, in a sexual way. A healthy heterosexual male will find a healthy young women's breasts to be sexually attractive. You may want to think they are just baby feeders, but that is not reality either. It is natural for a heterosexual to be sexually attracted to the female bodies. It is the obsession, the fetishization of a particular body part that is unnatural.

I think we are actually agreeing here. It may be natural to find the body of the sex you are attracted to attractive, of course, but to overly sexualize one particular body part is just odd. I mean, it is one thing to find the smoothness of a woman's abs alluring, or the shape or her legs, the curvature of her breasts even, (shoot, even women appreciate a nice chest on a man but we don't go around demanding that men cover their chest do we?) but to concentrate on just one body part and say that it is a "sexual" thing when it isn't even a reproductive part of the body, to just label it as such and require its covering and make it "dirty" and "shameful" and go so far as to say it will "scar children" if it is seen...well...I think those that go that far are the ones with perversion issues. :areyoucra

 

[Sha'irullah]

Bare breasts? Aren't they suppose to be used for nourishing hungry children?

To me this is like a grown man declaring a baby-bottle to be sexy. Is this some form of sick indirect pedophilia?

 

[ChristineES]

I am saying that men generally have an interest in the female anatomy from pubescence. I can't say whether that is drummed out of them or not. I have heard that Italians like to pinch butts and the French like to say "oo la la."

I wouldn't have said anything about Europe, particularly Italy, if I didn't see it for myself. The Italian men and the boys there did not react, not even the slightest bit when topless women were seen on the beach. The Americans are the ones who noticed because in their Country of origin, woman's breasts are incredibly sexualized. Italians pinch women's breasts, I've seen it and experienced it once. But, as far as I can tell, there was nothing really sexual about it.
There is nothing sexy about breastfeeding a child but people have seen them as sexual objects for so long that that can't even separate a baby eating from sex. But I saw breastfeeding in Italy and absolutely no one paid it any attention. I don't think they were all pretending not to notice.

 

[Sir Doom]

Perhaps by having the breasts exposed it detracts from the average adolescent male's ability to exercise their imagination when encountered with unexposed breasts. Its like an open-book test!

 

[Sand Dancer]

Nudity without portraying sexuality is okay. It's the human body. What's the big deal?

 

[Draka]

Perhaps by having the breasts exposed it detracts from the average adolescent male's ability to exercise their imagination when encountered with unexposed breasts. Its like an open-book test!

Exactly. It takes away the fantasy element. Once upon a time it was taboo for a woman to even show her ankles. Showing a bit of leg was, well let's just say it, the woman was a tramp. She was leading men on. Men got all excited by that little show of skin, that which was kept from them, that which they were only before allowed to fantasize about. Once it became normal for that to be seen, the allure was gone. The fantasy flown. The appearance can still be appreciated, but let's face it, it's not like men are normally all drooling over a bit of ankle and we, as a culture, all gasp over a woman on tv showing ankle. Show a boob however, and it's a frickin crime.

 

[Skwim]

I think it should be understood that the over-sexualization of women's breasts is cultural. It is true that in many cultures there is not the same obsession we we in North America.

But that doesn't mean that a women's breasts are not attractive, in a sexual way. A healthy heterosexual male will find a healthy young women's breasts to be sexually attractive.

But only in cultures where their allure has been fostered. Go to any culture where there's a different attitude toward female breasts and I'm certain you'll find a far different response to them. In cultures where bare breast are a common sight they will have next to no sexual appeal, whereas in cultures where bare breasts become less common there will likely be a corresponding increase in their sexual appeal. Just think of how the sight of an exposed female leg or even an ankle use to turn men on. Today, nowhere near as much, if at all.

You may want to think they are just baby feeders, but that is not reality either. It is natural for a heterosexual to be sexually attracted to the female bodies. It is the obsession, the fetishization of a particular body part that is unnatural.

Actually, pretty much by definition any obsession or fetish is unnatural---taking "unnatural" to mean outside the norm.