Please note: The first voting option is meant to suggest that breasts double as sexual organs & organs for feeding children. It was not meant to be divisive, however, now that I think about it,
this is pretty much a "boolean" logic situation...either they are or they are not sexual organs.
If they are not, they are solely feeding organs. Hence the two options. That is the way I see the issue. If you have further options, feel free to add them in your comments.
The sexual function of breasts is basically nil. Males may find breasts attractive, but they serve no actual inherent, physical function during sex. They do however form a physical function in feeding children.
Considering this, should breasts be consider sexual organs? Isn't this why it is not considered "acceptable" by society, for women to go topless in public? If we base our decency laws based on the sexual function of organs would that mean women should be allowed to go topless just as males are able to? If we say that the cultural view of breasts as sexually appealing means they should be covered, does this mean women should also cover their legs considering that some men are not at all attracted to breast but prefer the look of women's legs? If women have to cover what are technically non-sex organs because men find them appealing, should men have to cover their biceps/abs/whatever-floats-a-ladies-boat just because a large portion of women find it attractive?
Is forcing women to cover themselves, at least for non-sex organs, similar to what the Taliban/Al Qaeda/Middle-Eastern countries do?
Breasts for some women are an important part of sex. Nipples become enlarged and can be stimulated to aid in sex. It is a bit silly to say that the sexual function of breasts is nil when they are so important for many women. Your argument does therefore tend to break down. One must first determine what part breasts play in the sexual function of a women and of course, there would be different conclusions for different women. As for the stimulation of some men by the sight of breasts, you are right and conclude that different parts of the woman's body stimulate different men in different ways. This is of course one of the main objections that Islam has of the West, the blatant exploitation of the female body. We have gone through the sexual revolution and the feminism movement and are therefore much more liberated than societies of the past. Whether that is good or bad is a matter of personal opinion.
No, they're not a sex organ, though are a secondary sexual characteristic. Technically, the sex organs are just the ovaries and testes, they are the organs that generate the sex cells; penises and vaginas, etc. are also secondary.
Really, what's "indecent" about breasts, or even penises and vaginas? Feelings of indecency based around these organs are social constructs, and are not present in all cultures. There is nothing inherently impure in baring or viewing the human body, there is only what is normalized and what is taboo within a given culture, which may have originated for any number of reasons, rational or not.
I do feel there should be sexual equality... If men can bare portions of their bodies, it makes little rational sense that women should be forbade doing the same. Some western cultures do follow this sort of idea, and even some cities in North America have decriminalized female toplessness.
At the risk of being somewhat too graphic I will say that a woman's breasts play a significant role in sexual pleasure for both males and females, and I think few mature people with significant experience will deny this. While the role is not essential, it is substantial. There is at least as much reason to keep breasts covered for the sake of modesty as there is for covering the anus and related posterior areas.
On the other hand, feeding a baby is the normal and primary use of the breast. It would be very improper and severe to demand a woman to avoid any exposure of her breasts while she is breast feeding her baby. It is society's responsibility to provide women with the comfort and convenience to nurse their babies at any place and time while being able to minimize any necessary public exposure of her breasts while doing so.
What you consider graphic is your opinion. There are plenty of people, again, as stated, who do not experience pleasure by the sight or touch of breasts. I watched a recent video post to youtube by The Young Turks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr63FSsh8bU
Ana Kasparian makes an excellent point: We don't freak out when folks wear bikini's/thongs/"bannana-hammocks". So, if it is acceptable at the beach to essentially view someones buttocks with little left to the imagination, why shouldn't people be allowed to bare their bottoms in public. Now I would agree that for someone to purposefully bare their anus is a little weird, but you would have to intentionally do such a thing. What if folks did not do such a thing while going bottomless? It would essentially be no different from walking on the beach, would it not? So why shouldn't they be allowed to eschew pants? At the same time, the argument about private business's turning them away, that would be at the business's discretion, which I can partially agree with if you consider the role of hygiene. Even clean people shed a lot of skin and such. So a restaurant full of naked people can be a little unclean. However, open air nudity? I can't see the issue.
MODERATOR - Image link edited out; while I'm personally ok with the image, it is against forum rules. Sorry. (Plus the length of the link messed up forum formatting ). -Ankhanu
You may find that picture shocking....but...if it was a picture of an Amazonian tribe on the cover of National Geographic, would you be quite so shocked? Most people wouldn't. In fact, if I showed nothing but the first picture to 1000 people, I bet I would get mostly shocked reactions. But if I showed the cover of a National Geographic cover with naked Aboriginals, I bet nearly anything that people would not react quite as shocked as they would to the first picture.
Going back to the first picture...do they look mature, and as if they are fully capable of getting over their own nudity? Yes. They are not sprawled out, engaged in an uncontrollable orgy. Apparently they have the ability to control themselves and it has no bearing on their personal actions. That said, do me and you have any real right to claim it is their fault that we can't get over them being naked, that it offends us? No. Mentally, they can live unclothed. If they were the only ones on the planet, I think it is safe to say they would get along just fine as a community, despite not exercising the "modesty" you feel would be required of them. Our early ancestors did so (this is for Atheists who acknowledge facts concerning evolution), that is for sure, and had they as a society, not be able to function because of nudity, it is unlikely that we would be here to discuss the issue.
You know, Ana Kasparian made another good point. Her friend traveled to Iran, and while there observed a phenomenon:
Because no one saw females unclothed, actually seeing the uncovered skin (non-sex-organs, like skin on say the arm) actually heightened arousal despite not being something you or I (westerners in general) might consider overtly/inherently sexual. So, if we look at evolution, that would seem to suggest a possible reason for our current human focus on clothing and sexual organs.
Look at these clues and odd links...
If you look at most tribes in extremely hot places, you notice something peculiar: they don't wear much clothing, if any at all. They are often naked, even during the daytime and interaction with each-other, be it a local tribal setting or a multi-tribe meeting. If you go to places with wilder temp ranges, clothing is consider much more important. The "naked tribes" do not experience a lot of the sexual hang-ups that societies in those less stable, potentially colder climates do. Isn't that weird?
A side note: These tribes often form very stable, ecologically balanced population sizes...something you won't find in sexually obsessed, yet clothed societies.
So is it possible that folks in say medieval Europe developed this fascination with nakedness partly because they didn't see each-other naked as often as folks in perpetually hotter regions?
Could it be our brains, which it is proven can be manipulated, even knowing what is happening beforehand in some cases, will still fall for social programming of this type, based in large part on climate?
Again, look at the large number of tribes that don't wear clothes...they are situated in hot regions.
The Aztecs/Inca's/Mayan's were all cultures not really obsessed with clothes. They did wear costumes, but they were not really good at concealing sexual organs, nor were they meant to be.
When did that change? When the Conquistadors arrived. Now you can say that the Conquistadors fixed them, made them civilized, but then you have to ask...was raping, murdering, and stealing everything the natives had very cultured or civilized? Was that something which should be considered
more barbaric and immodest than not wearing clothes? Yes. Of course. So, that in mind, I think that if folks can wear little to no clothing, yet they control THEMSELVES and do not murder, steal, rape, etc, should they not be able to go unclothed? Isn't it someone else's problem if they can't control themselves at the sight of another person's nakedness?
Female breasts have no function during sex? Come on. If you do not have the experience at least use your phantasy or search a little on the internet to find out what you can do with breasts during sex. Not involving a woman's breasts during sex is like drinking water without a glass.
The point with breasts is that they serve several functions. Feeding children is the most obvious one, but their presence also signals that a female is sexually mature. Breasts distinguish women from girls.
I think it is natural that men look at women to see whether they would be a potential good sex partner. Women do exactly the same, just that they look at different parts of the male body.
Women cover up to stop men from looking at them? That would be completely new to me. Most women I know dress accordingly to the situation. If they want to attract attention they will show more of what they have. If they do not, they will cover up. Not because they are forced to, but because they know they will attract attention if they display too much of their bodies. Of course, I can only speak for the culture I come from.
Why the question is to divide it into two different purpose?
In real world, many things are multifunctional.
Women's breasts are used during sex, and used to feed children, too.
The importance of women's breasts is undeniable in sex and feeding.
if we consider the usage time and times,
women's breasts are used more during sex than others.
The feeding period is several months only,
not to mention that many women does not feed their children with human milk,
and many women did not give birth any child at all in their whole life.
On the other hand, the breasts take part in sex of almost every women's experiences.
Again, people keep bringing up the fact that males (and some females) find breasts sexually attractive.
Fine. That may be so. But this does not mean breasts are actual sex organs. Finding legs or feet attractive and involving them in sex does not make them sex organs. It simply makes them a focus of sexual attraction, which is a completely separate thing from a functional organ. It is undoubtedly true that had early human culture placed a huge emphasis on the sexual attractiveness of large feet, more people would be born with enormous and/or....."shapely"....feet. It has been suggested that
merely because early proto-human males developed an obsession with breasts (the human brain is different, leading to unusual culture traits you won't find in any other species) this lead to an unnatural selection for women with large breast and curvy hips. The main part of the evolution of the hips also has to do child bearing, but the weight gathered around the hips, having nothing to due with child bearing, may suggest men found women with chunky hips, attractive. It prehistoric times, heavier women were in fact considered more attractive. It suggested healthiness, but in today's cultures, the norm has reversed, with leaner women being considered healthier. This gives us a perfect example of the kind of phenomenon I am talking about, which lead to obsession with breasts
as sexually attractive, merely at the whim of our minds.
Now for the pure medical argument:
If a women removes her breasts, she is still capable of creating children.
This would seem to suggest..... :\ ...that breasts are NOT required in the reproduction process.
Therefore, in the strict sense of a sex organ being used to procreate, breasts are NOT sex organs.
Again, this does not mean we can't find them sexually attractive, but that does not make them sex organs. Saying they are, and then forcing everyone else (who may not even share your attraction, which may be viewed as a fetish even) to believe they are, is similar to your clique finding hands attractive, and therefore requiring everyone to keep their hands covered at all times. You may say that is ridiculous, but that is exactly what is happening in many Islamic countries. Sexual attraction
in human culture has taken a weird turn because of the way our brains function. We have all this ability to think in unusual ways; sometimes good, sometimes bad, sometimes weird. This situation seems to qualify for the last two. Humans have also hit an evolutionary wall. We won't experience the kinds of deviations in human evolution because of the way we interact. Normally a large part of sexual mating is determined by instinct for other animals. With humans, our culture sometimes overrides our instincts, causing us to do things concerning sex which we would otherwise not do.
This interferes with selection for only the fittest, or most attractive. Again, sometimes for the better, worse, etc.
Human culture has ultimately made breasts, which are not functionally sex-organs, into something which they are not.
Gee whiz, ignorance and puerility....
Here is WHAT'S WHAT
Breasts (female) ARE NOT sex organs. They have a post-procreation function - ie feeding the results.
Their status as a male object of lust is not ubiquitous and is therefore cultural/conditioning.
There it is, suck on that
You also sweat during sex, and your skin can tingle/shiver at intimate touch. Pheromones from your armpits used to be an insane turn on...does this mean your armpits are sex organs? One can argue the entire body is a sex organ with that loose of a definition. Sure, the human nipples do become hard during sex, not for everyone, and some people experience hardened nipples in response to many stimuli; temp, fear, anxiety, etc.
Hehe, funny good topic! Great!
Hm, if the breast only would have the function to produce milk then there is no need for enlargements since small ones work as well!
I have read about in books that touching breasts can lead to an orgasm,,, but only in books... I have spent hours n hours of touching breasts but never to an orgasm... OOPS do I do it wrong??? I don't mind really, they are only for me
But big breasts attract men, so that is the purpose I suppose. Sexual objects to trap men...
Why is it funny? It's a serious topic of genuine discussion and involved in law-making... the implications can be quite strong.
This has potential to be a very interesting topic, but, so far, there's just been a lot of ignorance.
It is possible for breast stimulation to induce orgasm... just as it's possible to induce orgasm by touching the neck... or through no touching of the body whatsoever. Arousal and orgasm can be largely mental states and can be achieved without physical stimulus. The brain is the most powerful erogenous organ, without engaging it, you'll never cause an orgasm through breast touching (alone) (even then it's not likely to happen). This sort of thing isn't common, but it does happen.
Why do you believe that breasts are for you?
Big breasts attract SOME (most?) men... but, no, that's not their purpose. There is no need for enlargements, neither... just aesthetics... which is highly culturally dependent.
Breast are for me cos the women use them to attract me - And I can completely choose free among the ones infront.
Do I dig bigger ones ... yes... But in my age anything goes
Hm, for some reason the forbidden breasts are the interesting ones - 10 pairs to choose from but the 11th is the most interesting.
Hm, Have you heard the story about the old woman who went to the doctor asking the best way commiting a suicide??
The doctor answered; take a gun and aim for the left breast.
A week later the old woman came in to the hospital with a wounded knee!
Correct viewpoint: Breasts are not sexual funtional more than guys in general easier have an orgasm if they are attractive (if ever they come... saggy ones...), but must be covered therefore...
If there is certain fetishism around the image of breasts, it is mostly due to them being covered most of the time. As I am sure it has been remarked numerous times before, people tend to search for what is hidden and forbidden. Yes, female breasts have certain sexual values, but if they were not covered, they would be sexual to women and not to men. Proof of this are aborigines from Africa and South America, who will walk around with their breasts uncovered, these no sexual effect on the men around them.
I totally agree with that. And I will add an example. In Germany it is customary to go naked to public saunas. And on most days men and women mingle. So you get to see a lot of naked women. The first few times I went there I felt sexually stimulated by seeing so many nude women, but after a couple of times seeing nudity became pretty normal and lost its sexual appeal to me. Also because not all women there are young and attractive. Actually most women are older and therefore their bodies are have had their bit of decay.
That is quit right.
In Finland it is also customary to go naked to public saunas. But men and women have theirs own saunas. It think it would be traumatic to see in sauna naked, sweating women. You probably will loose the illusion of perfect woman which most of men have.
Yes. Only that that experience is not traumatic but eye-opening. Nudity is not the same as sex.
And that brings me back to the original questions:
1) Are female breasts sex organs?
No, but they can play a role in sexual attraction and sex itself.
2) Are female breasts useful in feeding children?
Yes of course they are. That is their main function although in today's world they can easily be replaced by milk bottles.
3) Should they be covered in public?
It depends on the situation. In a German sauna they must not be covered. In a discotheque they should be partly covered. And when you go to church it is advisable to cover them if you don't want to have problems with other community members.
Well, if ever there was a reason to do something! I'm all for destroying false pretences.
Men have to get over the fact that women are people. They're not perfect, and expecting them to be so is utterly ridiculous. They're also not delicate little flowers, less capable than men.
If you feel it would be traumatic to see a woman sweat, that's a problem on your end
[quote="kaysch"]Female breasts have no function during sex? Come on. If you do not have the experience at least use your phantasy or search a little on the internet to find out what you can do with breasts during sex. Not involving a woman's breasts during sex is like drinking water without a glass.
Yes breasts are attractive, but saying that not including breasts in sex is like drinking without a glass is risky. Its more like drinking water without a straw: Its optional!
I find males calves attractive, and I'm sure many other women do, but I'm not going to say that calves are sexual organs. Same with feet fetishes. Just because people get sexual pleasure out of them doesn't mean that they are immediately sexual organs.
This is a great topic and one with varied opinions! I have to go with the pure biological definition of a sex organ in that sex organs are those involved in actual procreation. Going by that definition then NO female breasts are not sex organs. Not enjoying them during sex, and admiring them - those are separate topics!
As far as covering them goes - I totally agree with the adage "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" if it is acceptable to walk around in public topless, and a woman is comfortable doing so - then by all means have at it!
If it is acceptable to cover every part of your body and you are not offended by that custom - then do so!
I personally find it annoying when someone from another country comes to mine and attempts to push their customs and practices off on me! I do not find it offensive, but it is a bit annoying, I think common courtesy is to simply conform to what the people you are around are doing. Yes it is to fit in, but it is also a sign of emotional maturity to be respectful of other peoples customs and behavior, and try to sincerely learn what they are with the interest of adhering to them as well as understanding them!
You wouldn't go to India and slaughter a cow and cook up steaks would you? Hell no, I believe it is illegal, not to mention how many people would be offended and upset with it! Slaughtering a cow and cooking up steaks might be acceptable in the US, however why would I be arrogant enough to try and force that belief on the people of a place that I was visiting! Just not my place to do so!
So why try and force nudity on people that do not accept it, and why force covering oneself when that is unacceptable!
There is something to be said for practicing the character traits of humility and respect, especially when it comes to others cultures and customs!
They became sex organs when we culturally sexualized them. Freud would like to have a talk with you too, about the dipus complex, breastfeeding and sex.