Female breasts not sexualised

OK, a somewhat silly question. Would it be possible for western societies to see female breast as "just skin" and not a sexual object (or even organ).

So that sight of topless woman isn't more scandalous as seeing topless man and it's unacceptable only where showing too much skin is unacceptable anyway (for either sex).

feel free to go as back as possible. Bonus points if Christianity exists, or at least became OTL force with Rome
 
uh well, if you're male try fondle a bare female breast (not your mom / sister), you will get an erection, 85% of straight men (unless you're 15% of ass men)
 
I don't think that it is possible. Originally males probably liked about big breasts because they could feed babies better than small breast women.
 

Mookie

Banned
uh well, if you're male try fondle a bare female breast (not your mom / sister), you will get an erection, 85% of straight men (unless you're 15% of ass men)

You are watching from "civilised" perspective, where breasts are something you dont see or get option to touch bare, something seen as reward and invite to sexual act (flirting)
 
Not really. They are signs of fertility, but men there dont go around with 60 years long erections or stares.

That's just because they're used to it. If you or I saw bare breasts in public every day for our lives, it wouldn't cause much of a stir, but they would still be found attractive.
 

Mookie

Banned
That's just because they're used to it. If you or I saw bare breasts in public every day for our lives, it wouldn't cause much of a stir, but they would still be found attractive.

But wouldnt be sexualised. Sometime ago knees were sexualised, because men didnt see them that often. Having a woman walk in a skirt above knees before caused massive sexualisation. Now it doesnt.
In desert societies white skin is sexualised because you dont see it often. Sun scorches the moment it touches and its extremely rare, thus sexualised.
 
It's pretty clear that human breasts are sexual triggers. Look at most other mammals, cats, dogs, horses, even chimps. Female mammary glands are only large/noticible when nursing.

Ive seen various evolutionary explanations for why, mostly centered around some combination of hidden œstrus and the change to bipedality and 'missionary position' as the standard sexual position. (Well, technically facing positions). But they all agree that breasts, for whatever reason, became sexual triggers - and thats why they exist.

So. If breasts werent sexualized, they wouldnt exist.
 
So. If breasts werent sexualized, they wouldnt exist.

This basically. Humans are one of the few animal species where the breasts are pronounced outside of the nursing or pregnancy. This is because breasts are sexually attractive and therefore beneficial in the hunt for a mate. Of course, being human, we're perfectly capable of overlooking such a thing (hence the social media inspired 'ideal woman' being stick thin with no breasts to speak of). Personally, I'm an ass man. But yeah. ;)
 
uh well, if you're male try fondle a bare female breast (not your mom / sister), you will get an erection, 85% of straight men (unless you're 15% of ass men)

“Excuse me, miss; I need to fondle your breast. I have to verify the statistics of some guy on the Internet.”

Not really. They are signs of fertility, but men there dont go around with 60 years long erections or stares.

I can see it now…

This alternate universe said:
If you experience an erection lasting longer than 60 years, please discontinue Viagra and consult your physician. Who is hopefully not a woman.
 
So can it be agreed that this is essentially evolutionary, thus impossible to avoid given a population large enough?
 
OK, a somewhat silly question. Would it be possible for western societies to see female breast as "just skin" and not a sexual object (or even organ).

So that sight of topless woman isn't more scandalous as seeing topless man and it's unacceptable only where showing too much skin is unacceptable anyway (for either sex).

feel free to go as back as possible. Bonus points if Christianity exists, or at least became OTL force with Rome

No because it's biology not culture: breast are designed to be liked by both sexes otherwise toddlers wouldn't suck them
 
OK, a somewhat silly question. Would it be possible for western societies to see female breast as "just skin" and not a sexual object (or even organ).

So that sight of topless woman isn't more scandalous as seeing topless man and it's unacceptable only where showing too much skin is unacceptable anyway (for either sex).

feel free to go as back as possible. Bonus points if Christianity exists, or at least became OTL force with Rome
Breasts are to humans what butts are to monkeys. Because humans have a higher field of view, breasts developed a more permanent place as a marker of sexual maturity instead of the rear. Unless humans walk around on all fours, breasts are going to be sexual.
 
Even if there's a biological basis(something we have not proven, only come up with Just So Stories to justify) this is still a psychologically malleable and culturally bound response generally. We know very well that standards of beauty and sexual desirability vary significantly across time and space. I also think the early date is a bit of a red herring; until very recently too much skin on either sex was considered highly anomalous and either sexual or lower-class(even in the 1950s, someone walking around in a t-shirt was seen as Bad News). Now if you want the breasts to not become so heavily sexualized, you could perhaps change the course of midcentury advertising and "pinup mags" to de-emphasize buxom women; as one of the primary media through which women's bodies were treated as sexual objects in a way the male body wasn't* they might affect standards of desirability. More widespread nursing(not a total rejection of bottle-feeding, which will always be useful when the mother is indisposed or it's inconvienient to nurse) and more public acceptance of mothers going about their day with kids and nursing in public might also affect things if it becomes normal and accepted for people to sometimes see women with their breasts bared for the purpose of nursing.
*incidentally, why can't we have this conversation about the male body? That we are assuming that female body parts but not male body parts can become sexualized speaks volumes about how we talk about male and female bodies.
 
Even if there's a biological basis(something we have not proven, only come up with Just So Stories to justify) this is still a psychologically malleable and culturally bound response generally. We know very well that standards of beauty and sexual desirability vary significantly across time and space. I also think the early date is a bit of a red herring; until very recently too much skin on either sex was considered highly anomalous and either sexual or lower-class(even in the 1950s, someone walking around in a t-shirt was seen as Bad News). Now if you want the breasts to not become so heavily sexualized, you could perhaps change the course of midcentury advertising and "pinup mags" to de-emphasize buxom women; as one of the primary media through which women's bodies were treated as sexual objects in a way the male body wasn't* they might affect standards of desirability. More widespread nursing(not a total rejection of bottle-feeding, which will always be useful when the mother is indisposed or it's inconvienient to nurse) and more public acceptance of mothers going about their day with kids and nursing in public might also affect things if it becomes normal and accepted for people to sometimes see women with their breasts bared for the purpose of nursing.
*incidentally, why can't we have this conversation about the male body? That we are assuming that female body parts but not male body parts can become sexualized speaks volumes about how we talk about male and female bodies.

The biological proof is functional. If a baby mammal doesn't like tits and doesn't want to suck them it starves and dies
 
OP, I have to ask: Are you from the USA, Britain or a Catholic country? Because you paint the sexualization of the female breast with way too broad a brush.

Visit a topless beach anywhere in Northern Europe and you will see what I mean. I have rarely seen men on those beaches running around staring or god forbid with erections. Those few that did were invariably foreigners...It is a matter of context. Nude breasts can be boring as hell, really.
 
Top