That was essentially what I was going for, yeah. Also about male nips vs. female nips: that boils down to a similar thing since for centuries (millenia? Not sure) our societies have eroticized women's breasts whereas a shirtless guy has been portrayed to be about as erotic as turnips ("'Turnip' isn't a rude word, Baldrick." "It is if you sit on one."). Like Kat said, if we had treated the male chest like we have those of women, matters might be different. But we've been brought up, generation after generation, to think nothing of shirtless guys and drool at shirtless girls. Whose fault is it? If you think about it, men did dictate the rules (if we say something's sexy and "sinful" and should be covered in public, by God, it will be covered and seen as sexy and sinful!), but many women don't really like doing stuff without a bra/some boob support. I mean, can you imagine women doing sports bare breasted? Sorry, try not to imagine that, after all (see? See how we're conditioned to react to bouncing breasts?). All seriousness and emering boners aside, practicality may play a part in the issue in addition to men's rules since, unless a woman leads a fairly static life without doing much physically (or if her cup size is AAA or some such), she probably won't want her tits bouncing to her chin every time she runs to catch the bus, does sports, or smacks the guy trying to cop a feel. Now imagine how women would react to... oh, I dunno, Johnny Depp's nipples if it was that proverbial forbidden fruit? If they had never seen them anywhere (since men would never go out shirtless, men wore swimming suits instead of swimming trunks... the horror...), it would be like getting to see (insert any hot female celebrity who hasn't dropped her shirt yet)'s tits, right? Another thought: most men don't really enjoy a woman sucking and playing with his nipples. I know some do, but they seem to be the minority. For the majority, it's about as hot as someone playing with your elbow. Now, imagine if men's nipples were treated like women's, as a bonafide erogenous zone: how many of us would enjoy having a woman fondle and lick them then? How much of our dislike/indifference towards physical attention to our nips is just conditioning and how much of it is really about e.g. sensitivity or the lack thereof? I mean, we're supposed to frown upon a guy fondling his nipples while he's jacking off/fucking: "dude, you're a fucking creep... no pun intended." Funny thing btw: those of you guys who have actually lived with a girl for a while, have you ever noticed how, when she hangs out with you topless from day to day, eventually you go into boob trance less and less? It's almost like being really wasted and something happens that causes you to be suddenly sober, all of a sudden you see the boobs and stare at them, mesmerized, even though just a moment ago you were perfectly happy watching Futurama with her by your side, tits out. To me, that implies that it's possible we are conditioned to see women's breasts as something erotic, but if we were exposed to them day in, day out, and our societies treated breasts as something perfectly natural and mundane, we'd likely become as desensitized to them as we are to men's chests, like those tribes some place hot where the ladies do let it all hang out. I'm not entirely sure, since the boob trance is so hard to shake (and why would we want to close yet another avenue of pleasure? Why not grant women the same pleasure with our pecks by eroticizing them?), I wonder if seeing the wobble of breasts triggers some hard-wired, primal thing in us, or if it's just a very, very deeply ingraned piece of fabulous conditioning (that many women are currently missing out on, thanks to our patriarchal past)?
For proof one need only look at the uncounted societies and cultures where breast concealment has either never been a part of the culture or where it is/has been treated as a matter of fashion or simple practicality. From frescoes and statuary, we know that the Minoan culture went the route of practicality and also fashion. Women put their girls away when they were working, but for leisure time they had spectacular dresses that put the girls in display. It's all conditioning. In gay porn, nipple play is ubiquitous.
As you can tell from the responses on this, there is a terribly lopsided perspective on nudity in film (especially on tv). WAYYYYY back in the days of Hill Street Blues, America saw a groundbreaking surge forward in television broadcasting (and an opening advisory) with the inclusion of male nudity on the screen. When they got the male naked rear past the censors, they moved on to a side angle showing a penis at half mast during a bedroom scene, which was immediately shot down by the censorship board and the final aired product showed a "discreetly blurred" area in front of the actor's nether regions. Now, bear in mind, the censors had no problem showing the female in this scene almost entirely displayed for the viewing audience. There is a Puritanical mindset, in America more than anywhere else in the world, which sets differing standards of "appropriateness" for males and females. This is the same mindset that has made it so difficult to prosecute rapists with women ashamed of the assault and ashamed to file charges. and to accept the "she made me do it" argument in spousal abuse. And let me be the first to call BS on THAT defense!! For far too many years, the courts accepted the argument that a wife 'belonged' to her husband and, therefore, he was at liberty to do whatever he deemed necessary to 'control' her. (There are even court cases dating back to the forties and fifties where that was essentially the judge's assessment of the case - right before dismissing charges.) For a long time, in some cultures - even today in some Arab countries - a woman cannot file for divorce. There are no actions her husband can do that are not considered acceptable - from adultery to spouse abuse. Even today, too many wedding vows include the wording of "...to love, honor, and obey" for a woman but not for a man. Thankfully, most have eliminated the use of the word 'obey' in vows and many have opted for less traditional vows altogether. And then there is the issue of polygamy. The "old" Mormon church not only accepted multiple wives but encouraged it. Not so much from the other side of their bible - The Book of Mormon, however. A woman was dealt with more than sternly if she dared to have any kind of a dalliance with a man other than her husband. And he might well be thirty years older than her and "married" to three or four or more of her older sisters. It was her 'christian' duty to accept such a heinous, pedophile oriented 'marriage' to populate the church's numbers. Of course, nowadays, most of the Mormon church has steered away from that mindset, though offshoot sects, full of 19th century mentalities, still resist. As others have already noted, women, throughout the ages, have been objectified. Thus the mentality of, "Women are beautiful creatures, made for ... blah, blah, blah. --- Men are the strong, protectors... blah, blah, blah." (And can I get a BS vote on that????) I recall a fashion magazine years ago with a female weight lifter on the front cover. She was dressed in a long-sleeved evening gown and was knock-your-socks-off gorgeous. Then, on the inside story, you were treated to images of her bench pressing over 300# and posing in bikini tiny workout clothes, flexing muscles that any Mr. Universe competitor would kill for (though I daresay she would give them a good run for their money if they tried!) We have, all of us, been cubby-holed into arbitrary roles that do not necessarily fit our own personal needs nor the needs of the society. But these roles suit the easily led... or misled in our society. People cite religious reasons for 'protecting' exposure of male genitalia, but the mammary lustful, male dominated society we still live in has absolutely no compunctions about displaying the female breast. This sort of suggests that most men are overgrown babies who have never been fully weaned from the milk truck. So we still maintain an attitude where women are to be objectified but owned to be used at will, while men are the 'strong' dominant members of the species. Women are to be viewed and appreciated while men are the viewers and any woman showing any kind of lustful appreciation of a naked male form is cheap. (This does not, of course, mean to ignore the male fantasy of the dominant female partner.) Sadly, too often, women buy into this warped perception of reality as well. And THAT is why too many people still cling to the Babes Boobs are Beautiful/Malia Genitalia is just junk. So, if you want 'realism' go to Spain. Me? Personally? I don't want to be in any bedroom where I'm not part of the sex-capades. So, you can leave most of that at the door. If a guy gets in/out of the shower or some other more benign situation and it's just situationally appropriate. Who gives a...? Let it all hang out. [Did that even begin to answer the OP's question?????]
I'm afraid I still don't think that breasts and penises are on the same level. I believe that the female has something men don't, and that is a sexual organ on their chest. Now, is it possible that our species could have went a different way thousands of years ago and made breast exposure normal? Of course, but you can say that about anything, really. You can condition a society to accept anything given enough time. I would say that breasts are more 'acceptable' to our society as far as exposure. Things like breast-feeding, breast cancer exams and photos of aboriginal communities have 'exposed' the female breast in our society to the point where it is more accepted than penis/vagina. I believe that women have something that is incomparable to men. The only things you can compare are shots of vagina and penis. I hope you are referring to social roles, and not the inherent sexual dimorphism among the human species. I mentioned this before but males are born with the specific DNA that makes them stronger than females. Men are taller, stronger and have a larger heart and lungs than females. Females are biologically created for reproduction and most of their physical traits are for that purpose. There are many, many more differences in genders, but there are some groups that deny science because of some type of stigma. We must embrace our differences, not ignore them. While I think you make some good points in your reply, some of your statements are pandering to a certain base and some of your statements are just incorrect. I do think we have a long way to go as far as third-world countries, America has become more equal than most groups would like to believe. That doesn't mean we're there, but I think at this point there are more important things to worry about in the world. (Female stoning, rape, genital mutilation, enslavement, forced marriages, etc...)
I'd say we should all get naked and forget this whole argument, but that would put a lot of clothing companies out of business, and thus make a lot of people lose their jobs, and a lot of children would go hungry. So keep your clothes on for the sake of the children!
But they're not sexual organs. You can get have sex, get pregnant, and give birth, without them. Those things were made for feeding babies. Our society has decided that they have tremendous sexual significance, to the extent that many people disapprove of using them for their actual function. But nevertheless, that is their function.
Yup. Let us not forget that within even the last 100 years there have been periods of time when the display of even a female ankle was risqué and a leg - dear lord, a leg - was pornographic.
I would have to disagree with this. Studies in neuroscience have shown that the breasts play a key role in female sexual arousal. Also, breast volume increases during sexual arousal in addition to changes in the areola and erection of the nipples. There are three sensory 'maps' in the parietal cortex that light up in functional MRI images when genitals are (self) stimulated. These same areas respond to nipple stimulation. So yes, while it is possible to reproduce without the breasts, they are truly a sexual organ.
I agreee that breasts are sexual organs in some repect. They are multi functional but because they are not the"copulating organs" they are viewed less harshly and more often
Re: male shirtlessness. This could be just a simple matter of practicality. Men (in Western societies, at least) traditionally have done most of the hard physical labor - the logging, the ditchdigging, the lifting and carrying of heavy things - and that gets men sweaty. I mean, men are prone to being sweaty anyway, but hard physical labor just makes them a lot sweatier. Therefore smellier. It makes sense for men to do this work shirtless, because it cuts down drastically on laundry (which is a major benefit for women, who traditionally did the laundry!). So everybody got used to seeing shirtless men all over the place, and any taboo against male barechestedness went away. Simple. Or is this thinking too simple? Discuss! (Or not, as you prefer ...)
We have an issue of definition - I don't consider organs that merely serve as erogenous zones, rather than having a direct role in reproduction, to be sexual organs. I can see that one might, but that's not my definition. (Edited to add: And, come to think of it, the "erogenous zones" definition would make male breasts sexual organs as well. And, no, that's not a debate that I'm going to get into the details of. )
I hope breasts retain their sexuality. A beautiful breast is a great thing and the enjoyment of uncovering one should remain a cherished moment.
Perhaps you are unaware then, stimulating nipples in the female releases oxytocin that has a number of effects on the fertilization process. It's not some arbitrary pleasure.
But that stimulation is not mandatory for fertilization. Oxytocin is also released from hugging, kissing, shopping, and all sorts of other things, but we don't call lips, arms, or credit cards sexual organs. My definition of a sexual organ is one that, barring elaborate scientific schemes, is _needed_ for reproduction. No one has to agree with me, but that's what my definition is, and Merriam-Webster, while somewhat ambiguous, does not seem to clearly disagree with me. I would be more inclined to accept an argument that the baby-feeding function is a qualification for a sexual organ, since an unfed baby isn't going to successfully carry his or her parents' genes for long, so there's a reproductive functionality there. But babies can be fed some other way, so I'm not counting that either.
That's a strange way to define a sexual organ. How is it you decided to include only the barest minimum in your definition instead of the reproductive system as a whole? Your definition is arbitrary and not how a biologist would define the reproductive system.
Eh? When you say "reproductive system" you seem to be pointing to a path that agrees with me. Again, breasts are not needed in order to reproduce. When I Google "organs of the female reproductive system" and click on the WebMD link that appears near the top, they are not included. Newhealthguide doesn't include them either. Neither does the AMA's website. Livestrong does include them, but entirely in the context of feeding the infant.
Does sex get worse if, due to breast cancer, a woman has to have her breasts removed? More acceptable to whose society? In many Western countries you can't even breast-feed in public because bare breasts are such a taboo. You can't show topless girls on daytime television, either. And about the penis, like I said earlier, there're northern societies that are really quite civilized, they have iPads and learn English at an early age, yet naked dudes, sometimes with their dicks swinging about, on TV/film is just as or even more common than bare breasts. One example of such a mainstream movie would be, Young Gods. The girls were often fully clothed, even at a pool party, while the boys frolicked around naked or shirtless. Then there's one of the most successful Finnish movies of all time (national box office). Somehow the promotional poster didn't drive away the male audience. So it's not like, bare male body = less revenue. Not everywhere anyway. Hence I'm somewhat baffled when people look for reasons/excuses to justify the absence of male fronties and the prevalence of female fronties, as if we should just go like "ah, ok, that makes sense, let's tuck the dicks away then."
I have to agree with you on this one. If we count everything that arouses a person as a sexual organ, we'd have a huge list, even things that have nothing to do with the human body. Doggy style gets you just as pregnant as the missionary even if the guy doesn't bother with a reach-around. (lol, just as I typed this, my music player, on random, chose to start playing "Love Machine" by The Miracles). I mean, are the buttocks a sexual organ? A woman's rectum (since although women, unlike men, don't have a g-spot there, some women enjoy it)?
Nobody seems to notice this, but I gotta say: I can't remember EVER seeing female genitalia in non-R rated TV or in movies. When I say genitals I mean genitals - pubic triangles are not genitals (they come close, but are not). A similiar thing I noticed about male genitals in movies - when they are shown, they are almost never in erection. Ok, except on "Caligula", but you don't consider that a mainstream family-friendly flick... And a few other complete rejects, of course (www.screenjunkies.com/movies/movie-news/10-best-boner-movie-scenes/) And boobs? Who thinks boobs on screen are erotic anyways? There is so much boobs on screen these days that I fail to understand the continuing existence of soft-porn industry
Biologically, breasts and definitely nipples are part of the reproductive system. I'll find a better link.
Oversimplified web sites may not include the female breasts under the title, "reproductive system", but a biologist would not use such a limited definition. Notice on this page, The Reproductive System of the Female, which is more comprehensive and thorough, you find everything involved in reproduction from pituitary hormones to mammary glands. Controlled by the hormones of the reproductive system, and in addition nipple stimulation causes the release of oxytocin, and [warning, NSFW] I tried it earlier today and confirmed it directly causes a vagina reflex to contract.
@GingerCoffee biologically, I think breasts evolved from specific cutaneous glands, and are not directly connected to the actual reproductive system of mammals. Females do develop larger breasts in puberty in order to have more lactating potential, but male breasts contain same tissue (hormones can induce lactation in men, not to mention breast cancer). Edit: note the article says: "organs of the integumentary system" = the skin
BB, the clitoris starts out as the same organ as the penis in the fetus. That doesn't make it a penis. If the clitoris is part of the reproductive organ, so are nipples. They have similar functions. And who excluded male nipples?
