New find: Bare Breasted Female Statue Harms Minors.

[Skwim]

Maybe it's an evolutionary thing; desiring mates with good feeding potential for offspring?

The world is filled with maybes and what-ifs, none of which rise to the level of reliable knowledge. So personally, I'm still in the nurture camp of female breast appeal.

I'm sure there's an evolutionary biological "why" underlying their appeal.

And what do you imagine this evolutionary biological factor to be, particularly when it's not a universal characteristic within Homo sapiens?

Fortunately, one needn't study any biology to feel the appeal of headlights.

Or study botany to appreciate a good can of spinach.

​

 

[Falvlun]

If I were a citizen there, I'd start a different petition:
"Citizens who are just fine with breasts in public but don't like ugly sculptures". After all, I think it's fair if the public decides that a particular sculpture in their public park is so ugly that they don't want to look at it, nor do they want it to represent them or their city.

Also a note on this particular piece of art:
There are many pieces of art in which the subject is naked. But the focus is not on their nakedness. In other words, nudity-- and the shock of it-- is not the point of the piece. I'm thinking of Renaissance or Roman/Greek art. I think nudity, and the shocking value of it, is the point of this particular piece, and as such, I do find it personally distasteful, whereas I would not find some other more classical piece of naked art to be so crude.

 

[Jiggerj]

But it doesn't explain a thing about why "men love breasts."

Do we REALLY love breasts so much? What if they grew on trees? Would we go out of our way to fondle the fruit every day? I think our attraction to them is based only on the fact that they are attached to the female. No female = no attraction to breasts.

 

[Skwim]

If I were a citizen there, I'd start a different petition:
"Citizens who are just fine with breasts in public but don't like ugly sculptures". After all, I think it's fair if the public decides that a particular sculpture in their public park is so ugly that they don't want to look at it, nor do they want it to represent them or their city.

So how many should it take to make such a decision, a third? A majority? 2/3? A quorum of some sort?"

Also a note on this particular piece of art:
There are many pieces of art in which the subject is naked. But the focus is not on their nakedness. In other words, nudity-- and the shock of it-- is not the point of the piece. I think nudity, and the shocking value of it, is the point of this particular piece, and as such,

Which I assume is what you see as its focus. FYI, as explained in the video by a Chinese sulptor,

"the artist didn't want people to see her face, but look at some other part of the body. That it's meant to get people to acknowledge and appreciate different things about themselves. Wu says that's why the statue is headless. She's concentrated so much on her body it's as if her head doesn't even exist."
​

Of course you can dismiss the sculptor's intent and focus on its nudity alone, your privilege, but do you think it's a fair to judge someone else's intent by your perception?

"I do find it personally distasteful, whereas I would not find some other more classical piece of naked art to be so crude.

Why and why not? And what's crude about it?

 

[Me Myself]

So how many should it take to make such a decision, a third? A majority? 2/3? A quorum of some sort?"

Which I assume is what you see as its focus. FYI, as explained in the video by a Chinese sulptor,

"the artist didn't want people to see her face, but look at some other part of the body. That it's meant to get people to acknowledge and appreciate different things about themselves. Wu says that's why the statue is headless. She's concentrated so much on her body it's as if her head doesn't even exist."
​

Of course you can dismiss the sculptor's intent and focus on its nudity alone, your privilege, but do you think it's a fair to judge someone else's intent by your perception?

Why and why not? And what's crude about it?

Sometimes we just dont like sometthing or just find something makes us feel something ia way we dont like.

We may know why our favorite color is so or not, and even if we know an apparent why, it may not sound reasonable if contrasted with other things.

Taste is whimsical.

 

[Skwim]

Do we REALLY love breasts so much?

Well, that's how the article put it.

"New Theory on Why Men Love Breasts"
​

Personally, I'm quite fond of them.

What if they grew on trees? Would we go out of our way to fondle the fruit every day? I think our attraction to them is based only on the fact that they are attached to the female. No female = no attraction to breasts.

Well it certainly helps. I would hate to think their appeal is independent of females.

 

[Jiggerj]

but do you think it's a fair to judge someone else's intent by your perception?

LOL Isn't that what we're supposed to do with art?

And what's crude about it?

It's crude because it panders to mankind's lower basic instincts. We certainly don't need help in this department. I'd much prefer statues that promote the brain, and inspires the accumulation of knowledge.

1. Public statues of Einstein, Newton, Marie Curie...
2. Statues relating to the atom, medicine, of Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, Pasteur...

 

[Skwim]

Sometimes we just dont like sometthing or just find something makes us feel something ia way we dont like.

We may know why our favorite color is so or not, and even if we know an apparent why, it may not sound reasonable if contrasted with other things.

Taste is whimsical.

I agree, but let's not pretend that our objection to something is other than what it is. If you don't like a naked penis on a sculpture because you just don't like penises in general, fine, but don't pretend you think the sculpture should be put under wraps because it will corrupt the youth of River City.

 

[Skwim]

LOL Isn't that what we're supposed to do with art?

Whaaa? No! Perception is an end result, not the basis of judgement. We are expected to judge art on several levels; primarily on its execution and how well the artist has conveyed his intent. And it is these considerations that bring us to perceive a work as worthy of appreciation or not.

It's crude because it panders to mankind's lower basic instincts.

I presume that this didn't come from any inside knowledge of the artist or his goal, but merely your gut conclusion. I'm curious as to how this works. Do you just look inside yourself and see that your lower basic instincts have been aroused? And, that this can only happen if someone is deliberately pandering to them; your lower basic instincts always being kept in check from lesser assaults?

We certainly don't need help in this department.

Actually, some do. But these poor people aside, and assuming that by "lower basic instincts" you mean sexual feelings, just what is wrong with sexual feelings? Most people on Earth wouldn't be here, including yourself probably, were it not for these lower basic instincts. So, I wouldn't sell their utility short. They do have a function in life.

. I'd much prefer statues that promote the brain, and inspires the accumulation of knowledge.

1. Public statues of Einstein, Newton, Marie Curie...
2. Statues relating to the atom, medicine, of Jonas Salk, George Washington Carver, Pasteur...

Which is fine, just as I prefer good a jazz piece as well as a well played piano concerto. To each his own, and let's let each have his own.

 

[Me Myself]

I agree, but let's not pretend that our objection to something is other than what it is. If you don't like a naked penis on a sculpture because you just don't like penises in general, fine, but don't pretend you think the sculpture should be put under wraps because it will corrupt the youth of River City.

Sure.

I just wondered about your general questioning of favlun.

Do you distrust her call that she does appreciate nudity in other sculptures?

 

[Jiggerj]

Quote:
We certainly don't need help in this department.
Actually, some do. But these poor people aside, and assuming that by "lower basic instincts" you mean sexual feelings, just what is wrong with sexual feelings? Most people on Earth wouldn't be here, including yourself probably, were it not for these lower basic instincts. So, I wouldn't sell their utility short. They do have a function in life.

Yes, sexuality does have a function in life. So much so that even monkeys and gerbils can do it. The one and only human attribute that is worth promoting and celebrating is that which separates us from the rest of all living things: the ability to take mankind out of the woods and into the far reaches of space - by using our minds!

We see sexuality dripping from our TV sets and magazines. If intelligence and brain power got this much media attention we just might imprint on our children's minds that ignorance and stupidity is not an option. And that it's just not 'cool'.

 

[Revoltingest]

And what do you imagine this evolutionary biological factor to be, particularly when it's not a universal characteristic within Homo sapiens?

First, no one has demonstrated how universal it is or isn't.
Second, if some cultures don't find fun bags sexually enticing, that doesn't mean that the tendency isn't there.
Third, I'm willing to bet your left one that the appearance of any human trait has an evolutionary origin.

 

[ChristineES]

We are speaking of sexual arousal, not reproduction.

All women's body parts and attitudes are seen as sexy in one point or another by some person or another.

A beautiful face is extremely sexy for a lot or most men, for if you didn't know it.

As I said, the problem is not that the boobs are looked as sexy, but that ey are looked as ONLY sexy and that sex and sexy are looked at as sinful or bad.

Those two are the real main problems,

Some people find eyes sexy or lips or some other body part. I find certain eye brows rather sexy (like Sean Connery's eyebrows). The fact that I saw women's naked breasts on TV commercials while I was stationed in Italy shows that they have not sexualized them to the extent that other countries have done. I am not saying that all Europeans don't see them as sexy, but not to the extent that other countries, such as the USA, have.

 

[Draka]

Legs are "sexy", yet we show them on tv. A man's muscular chest and/or abs can be very "sexy", we show them on tv and no one gets offended and no fines get issued. One can find lips to be very seductive and "sexy" yet mouths are not covered on tv or in magazines or so on. No one is trying to ban the exposure of "sexy" lips. Why the special treatment for the mounds of flesh and fat on a woman's chest? What makes her mammary gland receptacles such a special case in the "sexy" or "attractive" department that they must be covered or else?

 

[Skwim]

Sure.

I just wondered about your general questioning of favlun.

Do you distrust her call that she does appreciate nudity in other sculptures?

Absolutely not. Just curious as to why she considers this one crude.

 

[Skwim]

First, no one has demonstrated how universal it is or isn't.

And they don't have to. Just knowing that it's not universal is good enough.

Second, if some cultures don't find fun bags sexually enticing, that doesn't mean that the tendency isn't there.

The issue isn't tendency, but actual sexual attraction and lack of sexual attraction to breasts. Let's not be moving them there goal posts.

Third, I'm willing to bet your left one that the appearance of any human trait has an evolutionary origin.

You're on. Prove that every human trait has an evolutionary origin. I'll wait. :sleep:

 

[Me Myself]

Some people find eyes sexy or lips or some other body part. I find certain eye brows rather sexy (like Sean Connery's eyebrows). The fact that I saw women's naked breasts on TV commercials while I was stationed in Italy shows that they have not sexualized them to the extent that other countries have done. I am not saying that all Europeans don't see them as sexy, but not to the extent that other countries, such as the USA, have.

That may be, but I do think they also have sex as way less "wrong" and "forbidden" than US too. Even today, there is sitll a lot of prude spirit.

 

[Me Myself]

In Ecuador, there is q tribe of men and women that go around so naked they dont even use normal almost naked tribe covers.

Men have a kind of ring on their penises and they take it off when for reproduction. The ring makes their penis head stay inside the foreskin so it cannot be seen. Women I dont remember if they even use something to cover their vaginas but if they did it was something as minimal.

Ultimately, its not that their penises or vaginas are not sexual, its just that they are used to seeing them. Tits are seen as a clear demonstration of womanhood all around and are likewise something that tends to attract men all around. Places where this change tend to come because of culture, but they are the exception not the norm.

 

[Flankerl]

Thats an ugly statue.

 

[Revoltingest]

And they don't have to. Just knowing that it's not universal is good enough.
The issue isn't tendency, but actual sexual attraction and lack of sexual attraction to breasts. Let's not be moving them there goal posts.
You're on. Prove that every human trait has an evolutionary origin. I'll wait. :sleep:

Silly boy...I said "bet", not "prove".
I hereby decree that "normal" is for guys to be aroused by loblollies, & any
culture where this doesn't happen is abnormal. There....issue settled.