Why oh why do we want to desexualise breasts?

Why oh why do we want to desexualise breasts?

AnnE
AnnE

July 21st, 2004, 1:06 pm #1

Folks
Thanks for all the responses to my postiing below about having spotted a braless pregnant woman, and my physical response to that. And yes Michael, I was speaking metaphorically to some degree, but Michaela & Tam, I'm afraid that you can do what you like, but your breasts (and mine), are objects not only of artistic beauty and practical functionality, they are also sexual organs, just like your brain. Trying to de-sexualise breasts is, IMHO, simply a philosophical position some people adopt to find a way to show off their breasts without appearing "slutty".

The sooner we all grow up and realise that we human beings are primarily and fundamentally sexual beings, and that our breasts can be, and are, sexual organs first, and artistic and practical second, the better for us all. You want more people to go braless? Simple, don't de-sexualise breasts: rather de-demonise sexuality!

Once we realise that everything we do and are revolves around our nature as sexual beings, the fact that breasts are objects of sexual desire becomes insignificant since they are only part of the bigger sexual picture!

This is NOT a troll: I'm dead serious about this. I've been on this forum for a while now, and it sometimes strikes me how some people are so quick to advocate and enact bra and top freedom, but are still completely unwilling to unshackle themselves from other societal strictures which are as absurd.

Anyway, let me go and look for my asbestos suit now . . .
Reply
Share

Cindiee
Cindiee

July 21st, 2004, 1:29 pm #2

Oh AnnE, you better get ready for an onslaught of responses, including mine.
I happen to disagree with your thinking to a certain degree, but there are others on this forum, who can articulate it much better than I can.
This will be interesting.
Cindiee
Reply
Share

AnnE
AnnE

July 21st, 2004, 1:45 pm #3

OK, so I've survived your "onslaught"

Next . . . .
Reply
Share

michaela
michaela

July 21st, 2004, 2:04 pm #4

Folks
Thanks for all the responses to my postiing below about having spotted a braless pregnant woman, and my physical response to that. And yes Michael, I was speaking metaphorically to some degree, but Michaela & Tam, I'm afraid that you can do what you like, but your breasts (and mine), are objects not only of artistic beauty and practical functionality, they are also sexual organs, just like your brain. Trying to de-sexualise breasts is, IMHO, simply a philosophical position some people adopt to find a way to show off their breasts without appearing "slutty".

The sooner we all grow up and realise that we human beings are primarily and fundamentally sexual beings, and that our breasts can be, and are, sexual organs first, and artistic and practical second, the better for us all. You want more people to go braless? Simple, don't de-sexualise breasts: rather de-demonise sexuality!

Once we realise that everything we do and are revolves around our nature as sexual beings, the fact that breasts are objects of sexual desire becomes insignificant since they are only part of the bigger sexual picture!

This is NOT a troll: I'm dead serious about this. I've been on this forum for a while now, and it sometimes strikes me how some people are so quick to advocate and enact bra and top freedom, but are still completely unwilling to unshackle themselves from other societal strictures which are as absurd.

Anyway, let me go and look for my asbestos suit now . . .
<<The sooner we all grow up and realise that we human beings are primarily and fundamentally sexual beings, and that our breasts can be, and are, sexual organs first, and artistic and practical second, the better for us all.>>

Well perhaps it is true that breasts can be and often are thought of as sexual organs first because of the way western society has forgotten what there primary funtion is...but it isn't true. Breasts are first and foremost-baby feeders. They are not sex organs in the primary sense.

I don't think any one here on this forum demonizes sex or sexuality. But what we are absolutely sick of is society as a whole claiming our breasts, owning them, and exploiting them for profit in a sexual manner.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

July 21st, 2004, 2:08 pm #5

Folks
Thanks for all the responses to my postiing below about having spotted a braless pregnant woman, and my physical response to that. And yes Michael, I was speaking metaphorically to some degree, but Michaela & Tam, I'm afraid that you can do what you like, but your breasts (and mine), are objects not only of artistic beauty and practical functionality, they are also sexual organs, just like your brain. Trying to de-sexualise breasts is, IMHO, simply a philosophical position some people adopt to find a way to show off their breasts without appearing "slutty".

The sooner we all grow up and realise that we human beings are primarily and fundamentally sexual beings, and that our breasts can be, and are, sexual organs first, and artistic and practical second, the better for us all. You want more people to go braless? Simple, don't de-sexualise breasts: rather de-demonise sexuality!

Once we realise that everything we do and are revolves around our nature as sexual beings, the fact that breasts are objects of sexual desire becomes insignificant since they are only part of the bigger sexual picture!

This is NOT a troll: I'm dead serious about this. I've been on this forum for a while now, and it sometimes strikes me how some people are so quick to advocate and enact bra and top freedom, but are still completely unwilling to unshackle themselves from other societal strictures which are as absurd.

Anyway, let me go and look for my asbestos suit now . . .
Well we have discussed this so much in the past but basically here's the problem- female breasts are treated different than male breasts and all other parts of the body (other than the pubes) because they are consisted sexual. That why you can't go topfree in public even brafree without being considered slutty.

Your idea to "de-demonise sexuality" may sound fine in theory but as a practical matter it just isn't going to happen so as long as your breasts are seen as 'sexual organs' you will never have breast freedom like men do. It's just that simple.
Reply
Like
Share

michaela
michaela

July 21st, 2004, 2:13 pm #6

I don't think AnnE really wants breast freedom. She would rather they remain "sex organs" and sexy so that they don't lose any of the sizzle and snap. She would lose something she derives pleasure from if the breast loses its high sexual status.
Reply
Share

Nat
Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

July 21st, 2004, 2:20 pm #7

In that case Ann is at the wrong forum. BFF is about breast freedom, not breast exploitation.
Reply
Like
Share

michaela
michaela

July 21st, 2004, 2:30 pm #8

That is what I kind of thought, But...I wouldn't want to invite her to leave. I would rather she stay awhile so we can talk. Even if she and I disagree, which I think we do.
Reply
Share

Joined: April 11th, 2004, 7:40 pm

July 21st, 2004, 2:57 pm #9

Folks
Thanks for all the responses to my postiing below about having spotted a braless pregnant woman, and my physical response to that. And yes Michael, I was speaking metaphorically to some degree, but Michaela & Tam, I'm afraid that you can do what you like, but your breasts (and mine), are objects not only of artistic beauty and practical functionality, they are also sexual organs, just like your brain. Trying to de-sexualise breasts is, IMHO, simply a philosophical position some people adopt to find a way to show off their breasts without appearing "slutty".

The sooner we all grow up and realise that we human beings are primarily and fundamentally sexual beings, and that our breasts can be, and are, sexual organs first, and artistic and practical second, the better for us all. You want more people to go braless? Simple, don't de-sexualise breasts: rather de-demonise sexuality!

Once we realise that everything we do and are revolves around our nature as sexual beings, the fact that breasts are objects of sexual desire becomes insignificant since they are only part of the bigger sexual picture!

This is NOT a troll: I'm dead serious about this. I've been on this forum for a while now, and it sometimes strikes me how some people are so quick to advocate and enact bra and top freedom, but are still completely unwilling to unshackle themselves from other societal strictures which are as absurd.

Anyway, let me go and look for my asbestos suit now . . .
Hmm,

Anne obviously you knew you would stir things up a bit, and that is not always wrong. As has been indicated we have been round this circuit many times, but I am not sure with any real resolution, because everyone has their own ideas, which again, is not unhealthy.

I have often remarked before that many of our discussions/arguments get messy because everyone is using a different definition.

Remember that immortal quotation in Alice?: "When I use a word it means exactly what I want it to mean...there's a fine...argument for you". In other words, depending on how you define words you can 'win' any argument, but not necessarily clarify anything.

Let's face it, breasts are not 'sexual organs' in the sense of having a primary sexual or reproductive role, even though they help to ensure the survival of the offspring. I stressed 'primary' because someone with an anthropological bent is going to come back here and tell me that breasts attract mates, encourage mating, and hence are 'sexual'. Not necessarily.

We are not going to change thousands of years of human sociology here - the female form, clothed or unclothed, has been considered a thing of beauty by men and women, and I have no problem with that. Often women and men differ in their concepts of beauty, the former concentrating on the overall impression, the male sometimes being more focussed.

As I indicated in the James Laver essay from Vogue, the primary focus of the female form tends to shift around in terms of what is considered erogenous (which is not strictly 'sexual'). Breasts are beautiful and also hard to miss. The whole thing about bras is to emphasise them - look at those young ladies perpetually posting on bulletin boards - "If I don't wear a bra people will think I don't have boobies" (as in not desirable, I presume).

Women, in general, like looking at breasts and having their breasts looked at. We are not going to change that. It is the degree of emphasis on the breast as opposed to other features of the female form that has got out of proportion (hence silicone, 'girlie' magazines, and 'topless' bars).

Breasts can be a source of phsical pleasure, not just in lactating, but as in being caressed. Again, no problems with that. That still does not make them 'sexual'.

There is also nothing wrong in thinking yourself as 'sexy', as in desirable, an object of admiration. Somewhere there is a line which might be called 'flaunting'. Not wearing a bra, wearing see through clothing, being topless or even nude, are not necessarily associated with 'flaunting' which is more a behavioural term.

Women go bra free for many reasons, alone or together. A number of them report that they feel more 'sexy' and should not be chastised for that, especially since bras are often marketed specifically for that purpose.

Anne, I think is saying that she should not be denied the right to feel desirable, with respect to her breasts, and presumably everything else. That should not be construed as 'exploitation' - I don't think she heads out of the house with the express purpose of inflaming the entire male population. But she enjoys being noticed, and she would not be alone in that.

So we all need to calm down, get used to seeing the female breast in all its diverse forms, and varieties of investments, and not overemphasise it in relation to the rest of our bodies. Breasts are just breasts, and enjoying them on yourself or someone else is not a sin.

So as usual, everyone is right

Reply
Like
Share

michaela
michaela

July 21st, 2004, 3:06 pm #10

Michael, I am totally calm. I have not an uncalm fiber in my being. I am simply defining my impressions on this subject, just like AnnE has done. Okay?
Reply
Share