New find: Bare Breasted Female Statue Harms Minors.

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

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.

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

I don't think it's only culture. Breast are a sign of fertility as well aren't they? I've heard that even the act of a man suckling on a womans breast helps build attachement.

There seems to be a natural/biological involvement. Though I do agree that certain cultures foster it more than others. I am more attracted to hips and ****, but a nice pair will still draw my attention.

 

[Skwim]

I don't think it's only culture.

I would say that in almost all cases it is cultural.

Breast are a sign of fertility as well aren't they?

They certainly can be, although I think this is only true in primitive cultures. I don't recall anyone today remarking that a nice set of breasts strikes them as indicative of fertility. Or, that they're going to pursue a woman because she looks fertile; as in "Hey! look at that fertile babe sitting over there. WOW!!!"

I've heard that even the act of a man suckling on a womans breast helps build attachement.

Babies and young children sure, but men? To each his own.

That said, I rather like finding female breasts attractive. They can be a turn on, which would likely not be the case if bare breasts became common place.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

Well, I don't understand why women get all hot & bothered over naked manly parts.
We're each affected in our own way.

 

[Jiggerj]

What does it say about people that get offended over breasts on a statue while having no concern whatsoever that its HEAD is missing? You can cut off its head, legs, and arms, but you better cover up those boobies! :thud:

 

[4consideration]

What does it say about people that get offended over breasts on a statue while having no concern whatsoever that its HEAD is missing? You can cut off its head, legs, and arms, but you better cover up those boobies! :thud:

You make a good point here.

I wonder if some of the objection to the statue might also be that there is no head, mostly just naked body parts. I can see people feeling like it is objectifying women, portraying women as only their bodies, since the head is missing.

 

[Me Myself]

I find it funny how there is a newspaper here calle the Extra which is famous for very bloody images and news and seminudes voluptuous women. According to investigations of habits regarding it, people tend to hide the volutuous women from kids but they dont care if they see the newspaper with e violent parts.

I guess one good thing about my country (and trust me, I dont count a lot when comparing it with other places) is that we dont extend that idiocy when it comes to breast milk.

yesterday or the day bnefore that on a bus I saw a mother giving breast milk to her child and everyone was just minding their own business.

 

[dgirl1986]

God they really like to go to extremes dont they. They make everything seem so freaking dirty. I guess breastfeeding will be seen as harmful to children given that there is a sexualised body part involved -.-

 

[Me Myself]

I think b now all bodyparts are sexualised.

The problem is not that they look at it as sexy, the problem is that they look at sexy as if wrong and that they look at it as if it could only be seen as sexual.

 

[ChristineES]

Well, I don't understand why women get all hot & bothered over naked manly parts.
We're each affected in our own way.

To be fair, I am speaking of breasts, not of any sexual parts. The sexual parts of a woman are well below the breasts.

 

[Revoltingest]

To be fair, I am speaking of breasts, not of any sexual parts. The sexual parts of a woman are well below the breasts.

Nah, that's just being pedantic.
Hooters have great sexual appeal...just not to all.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Nah, that's just being pedantic.
Hooters have great sexual appeal...just not to all.

So do nice hands or feet. They can be fetishized too.

 

[Draka]

So do nice hands or feet. They can be fetishized too.

Oh, let's not forget things like necks, legs, and even hair. Then, of course, there is the mouth. Talk about something that can be sexualized and be used sexually. Let's just pixelate over the mouth of everyone because we wouldn't want anyone to fantasize about mouths now. We know what they can be used for behind closed doors you know. Dirty dirty mouths. They should be covered at all times. It's no wonder we have the moral decay we have in the world, people walking around with their mouths exposed. :cover:

 

[Skwim]

So do nice hands or feet. They can be fetishized too.

Not saying that breasts can't be "fetishized," but having great sexual appeal (Revoltingest's description) is not the same as a fetish.

 

[metis]

I hate to say this, but so many Americans are so immature when it comes to any nudity, and they seem to confuse nudity with sex. Let me suggest that they never go to Europe or even Israel whereas at least partial nudity is actually quite commonplace. Why is it that nudity is a no-no on t.v. but violence with blood spurting is perfectly acceptable?

BTW, ABC now requires "nipple-guards" on their national programs so people cannot see that deadly nipple bulge.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Not saying that breasts can't be "fetishized," but having great sexual appeal (Revoltingest's description) is not the same as a fetish.

Because many cultures do not even consider the breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic, I still contend that breasts are fetishized in the U.S. Namely larger breasts with larger areolas that are typical requests from strippers, porn stars, and other women when paying for elective cosmetic surgery.

FWIW, I'm not discussing paraphilia, but fetishism. Many fetishes are quite mild and only are specific regions of the body or outside objects that cause an arousal and sexual response in someone.

The jury is out on how exactly the secondary sexual characteristic became its definition and qualifier. It could the areas sensitivity to stimulus and acts as an erogenous zone, though many other pulse points have been known to be erogenous zones too that don't qualify the same. It could be a physical sign of fertility, though pubic hair doesn't get the same attention either. I question whether or not breasts are innately having sexual appeal when 1) not all people are attracted to women, and 2) cultures around the world consider the function and aesthetics of the human breast very differently. Some revere the breast (like other cultures with phallus worship), and do not find arousal from the sight. Our culture just happens to be quite taken with an exposed breast and nipple. As evidenced by the reaction to the statue.

Just my two cents.

 

[Skwim]

I hate to say this, but so many Americans are so immature when it comes to any nudity, and they seem to confuse nudity with sex.

I don't think it's a matter of immaturity---as in "they'll outgrow it"---at all, but more a matter of cultural conditioning. I firmly believe that the moral stranglehold fundamentalist Christian settlers had on early Americans set the tone for acceptable/unacceptable behavior for the many years that followed, right up to today. It's a lamentable bias, but it's there nonetheless.

Let me suggest that they never go to Europe or even Israel whereas at least partial nudity is actually quite commonplace.

Your suggestion is noted, but it won't have any effect. As ingrained as the overall American attitude toward nudity/partial nudity is, it ain't no deal breaker.

Why is it that nudity is a no-no on t.v. but violence with blood spurting is perfectly acceptable?

The nudity no-no is in place for the reason I gave above---in effect, a carryover of prudery of many of its viewers. However, the acceptability of violence is more difficult to explain, at least I've never seen a good explanation. If I was in charge, I'd reverse the two yesterday.

BTW, ABC now requires "nipple-guards" on their national programs so people cannot see that deadly nipple bulge.

Interesting. Got a source, preferably a link?

 

[Skwim]

Because many cultures do not even consider the breasts as a secondary sexual characteristic, I still contend that breasts are fetishized in the U.S.

And I agreed that, yes, they are, but just because they "have great sexual appeal" doesn't make them objects of a fetish. It takes more than great sexual appeal to make a sexual fetish.
According to Robert T. Francouer’s The Complete Dictionary of Sexology, a fetish is

". . . a strong sexual preoccupation with an object, material or body part."
source
(emphasis mine)
​

FWIW, I'm not discussing paraphilia, but fetishism. Many fetishes are quite mild and only are specific regions of the body or outside objects that cause an arousal and sexual response in someone.

And according to Robert T. Francouer’s dictionary, a fetish can also be a subcategory of paraphilia if it causes distress or harm.

The jury is out on how exactly the secondary sexual characteristic became its definition and qualifier.

And I wasn't even aware a jury had been convened. According to studies done,

". . . breasts play a key role in female sexual arousal. In their classic report on the female sexual response, Masters and Johnson pointed out that breast volume increases during sexual arousal.
source
​

I question whether or not breasts are innately having sexual appeal when 1) not all people are attracted to women, and 2) cultures around the world consider the function and aesthetics of the human breast very differently. Some revere the breast (like other cultures with phallus worship), and do not find arousal from the sight. Our culture just happens to be quite taken with an exposed breast and nipple. As evidenced by the reaction to the statue.

And I don't believe they have much of an innate sexual appeal at all. Their sexual appeal is almost entirely a nurture not nature response.

 

[Sir Doom]

I hate to say this, but so many Americans are so immature when it comes to any nudity,

I must confess that I can become quite immature when it comes to handling breasts.

and they seem to confuse nudity with sex.

People are often naked when they have sex. When I see a nude girl, it makes me think of having sex. I don't really think that's confusion at work.

Let me suggest that they never go to Europe or even Israel whereas at least partial nudity is actually quite commonplace.

So you suggest that in order to get over our immature American nudity/sex confusion we should isolate ourselves in America? Do you really think that's going to work?

Why is it that nudity is a no-no on t.v. but violence with blood spurting is perfectly acceptable?

Probably because people complain about the first thing and not the second. Of course, we are the same people that replaced guns with walky talkies in ET. So, you know it ain't a hard and fast rule. Plenty of people would like to remove violence from TV as well.

BTW, ABC now requires "nipple-guards" on their national programs so people cannot see that deadly nipple bulge.

lol, do guys have to wear them?

 

[Revoltingest]

So do nice hands or feet. They can be fetishized too.

While this is true for some, bazongas have far far wider appeal.
I get a distinct impression from some of the feminist/female types here that they think there's something
perverse or abnormal about finding sweater puppies sexually arousing. Well if so, then I'm a proud perve!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

While this is true for some, bazongas have far far wider appeal.
I get a distinct impression from some of the feminist/female types here that they think there's something
perverse or abnormal about finding sweater puppies sexually arousing. Well if so, then I'm a proud perve!

What's wrong with a fetish? I like women's hips.

The wide appeal is rather cultural, from what I gather. Nothing wrong with that, but I find the debates fun when it comes to the sex appeal of breasts as biological. I find it funny when people try to explain their love of breasts as a biological trait, and that all people who are attracted to women have that same pervy desire.

Why try so hard to say you can't help it? Why think fetishizing breasts is somehow a bad thing?