Female Nudity

Define "society". Not every culture in the world sees a breast as something that should be censored.

 

I think it's just because breasts develop from sexual maturity and have, in our society, strong links with sexuality. And that makes them fall under the blanket of nudity along with the reproductive organs.

 

Some ideas of mine:
-reasons of patriarchy that still linger
-reasons of religion and gender roles (women should be chaste, proper and that includes taking up less space, being small, covering up)
-if women didn't cover up all the time there may be fear that sex would be "less sacred" between two people who love each other
-maybe there are fears of more rape occuring?
-people might actively compare bodies more?

But in all honesty, if I could, I'd want to walk around naked too. Especially considering summer heat here gets into the 30s-40s Celcius... :tears: and sweat= blah...

Those are just some ideas.

 

Here's an idea from a girl,

Maybe in most of Europe and North America for most of the year it TOO COLD.

And I don't mean to gross anyone out now but,

Women who don't have absolute flat chests have to wear a bra, otherwise our breats would sag and become limp and altogether disgusting. Not to mention the stretch marks we would get.

 

ok some areas woman do walk around topless, i saw it on some program last year.

bt here its considered yeah its private bit of the body, they grow as a woman gets more mature and older, it would b like if a guy walked around with no pants on, well i guess in my mind its like that. its just somthing that is private.

 

I don't think it was a smartass question.

 

This. Bra serves as a support for breasts. Also, it's pretty much a tradition we still stick to...

But if bare female chest is nudity, so should be male chest. Basically, breasts are covered to prevent arousal and it makes sense since no one is turned on by male chest. Yup. :rolleyes:

 

A guy's pectorals are not considered as sexual as a woman's breasts.

Even though I am not a boob fan, I don't understand why people are offended. Breast are assumed to be sexual if you include childrearing to be sexual in nature. however, they are not involved at the core with sex itself, which has to do with penises, vaginas, and anal orficies. Sure, people use them in foreplay, but you dont need breast to have sex.

It could also be that western society sexualize them. Guys are suppsed to be turned on by big breasts... that is what society says. it could simply be a stigma.

Honestly, I love pects myself, partly because a guy with a nice set is a guy who cares about his health, well-being, and apperence. That is sexual in its own way.

 

Screw this. Breasts are beautiful. Not just the perky small ones that fit what the media deems to be appropriate bra-less boobs. I defy this ridiculous notion that stretchmarks are ugly or that sagging breasts are digusting. Celebrate breasts in all shapes and sizes. Small, large, round, pointed, long, large nipples, small nipples, veiny, hairy!

I wear bras because people expect me to wear bras. But you know what's the first thing I take off when I get home? My bra. I wish I had the strength to go out in public bra-less and free.

 

i personally would rather not have to look at girls tits so its ttly fine with me society makes them cover them up
but ya i can see ur point

 

I think there's definitely an element of socialization involved - whatever parts of a woman's body are deemed "taboo" by a particular culture have to be kept hidden. In our society, it's breasts, but in others, it can be different parts - in India and Nepal, for example, it's scandalous for a woman to bare her ankles or shoulders, yet six inches of midriff showing at the waist of a sari is perfectly acceptable. In parts of Africa, women can walk around bare-chested but must keep their legs covered.

However, I remember reading a compelling argument once that it is partly evolutionary - women's breasts don't need to be as big as they are in order to perform their biological function (breastfeeding), as can be seen by the many, many other species of mammals who breastfeed but don't have large breasts. So the theory is that large breasts in humans evolved as a way to signal to men that a woman was young, healthy, well-fed, and fertile.

 

One part is evolutionary - one theory places that human breasts are unlike the rest of the animal kingdom in that they are always what would be considered a "lactating" size even when not having just given birth because among primates we look at the butt (hee hee ) for signs of "fit"ness in a potential (female) mate, and standing upright makes the butt less visible. So, those females who had larger boobs whilst not lactating had a better chance of attracting a mate as they effectively form a "butt" on the front of the body.

That's what I heard, in any case.

 

You know, I'd like to do a private survey just to see how many heterosexual American men consider themselves to be wildly turned on by breasts to the point of instant arousal. I'd like to see if some of those men simply pretend they do when they're really more interested in some different body part like the hands, neck, ankles, etc. The breasts are not genitalia, it's just a partialistic fascination overblown by American media and societal expectation.

 

SSSHHHH Joey don't change things!!!! There great as they are (shirtless wise). In all seriousness though, woman's breasts are sort of a sexual organ whilst men's aren't really if that makes sense. Sure men's chests can be attractive but women's coconuts are more BOOM. I don't know that's my opinion on it.

 

i dont know. i really dont. i see them as part of a human no different than male nipples. only a bit fatter tbh. i see nothing special about them but i do agree people do seem to hold them as a holy grail and its annoying.

 

This. They are the first sign of budding sexuality and secondary sex traits for women.