Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 3, 2011 at 1:21pm

Thus, neither member of a mated pair wants the female to send sexual signals to other males. The same reasoning applies when selecting mates as well. Prospective mates want to see behavior that indicates commitment.

 

Well said.  Men may brag about their security and harboring no jealousy, but there is another word to describe many of those men; cuckolds. The reverse can be true for secure women.  Jealousy serves a purpose.

 

Evolutionary biologists say that human female breasts evolved solely for that reason: to attract males by signalling sexual maturity and by mimicking the cleavage of the buttocks, which had been a sexual signal for millions of years before our ancestors stood upright and faced each other

 

I would quibble with this.  I don't think that, as stated here, this is the consensus among biologists.  It may be a leading hypothesis as to why human females have breasts throughout their adult lives whereas other apes only develop breasts during the nursing of young.  I could be wrong, though.  But, the existence of societies where bare breasts are not seen as sexual lures seems to poke some holes in this evolutionary explanation.

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on July 3, 2011 at 2:24pm

Societies where female breasts are often bared are usually in very hot climates where a greater degree of nudity is necessary.  Besides, who says they are not still sending sexual signals?  It's just that in those societies the signals are muted by cultural habits. 

 

The same reasoning applies to the hair and face of a female.  There are societies that cover them because of the potential for sexual arousal in other males, yet in our own society we do not.  Nevertheless, I confess to finding the hair and faces of females sexually attractive more than occasionally.  If I had grown up around bare breasts, I would probably feel the same way about them--though I suspect I might feel a little more stimulation than I do about hair and faces.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reggie on July 3, 2011 at 3:29pm

Well, you it's likely true that you won't find people in colder climates going about their day topless, male or female.  That seems to be a result of practicality.  But, we do see many hot climates where full body covering is standard.

 

Whether the very existence of a thing being a sexual signal or not seems all besides the point, anyway.  A man's broad shoulders, a woman's wider hips, or a man's facial hair can all be viewed as signals of sexual maturity/ability as you pointed out.  That one society would find bare breasts to not be disruptive to their daily life (regardless of any "signals") and another society in a similar climate would find the baring of any female skin as being highly offensive/disruptive is quite telling.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steve on July 4, 2011 at 12:28pm

Western Europe isn't that hot and it's still not unusual to see women topless at beaches (and not just nudist beaches), at the pool and in public parks. They don't walk topless through the streets, but in certain places it's perfectly acceptable.

 

As for the covering of body parts. If you cover one, something else tends to become attractive. At one point it was scandalous to show some ankle. I've found myself finding the eyes of some Muslim women with Niqabs to be very alluring. Which is probably why the Burqa was invented.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by thalio on July 3, 2011 at 2:02pm

Okay. End of conversation. No, seriously, that was brilliant and spot on, Mo. Female nipples send a sexual signal and it's not just by social convention. Male nipples (generally) do not.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on July 3, 2011 at 8:17pm

I bet Americans early last century had this same conversation over female cleavage before the bikini took over the world.

 

"Women should not show cleavage. It sends a sexual signal, and it's not just by social convention."

 

Evolve, hivemind.... EVOLVE!!!!!

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on July 3, 2011 at 8:34pm

Well, it does.  They were right.  We have simply become used to seeing it in so many settings where it is not meant as a specific sexual signal that we have become inured to the sight.  Tell me, if you are going on a date with a guy that you have decided to have sex with, wouldn't you consider showing cleavage as a way of signalling to him that you want his attention sexually?  That certainly seems to be a common behavior amongst females that I know--even now in the 21st century.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jewelz on July 3, 2011 at 9:13pm

Correct. My point was that we would eventually become equally inured to the sight of female nipples at the beach if it became the society norm. People need to realize this. The only reason people think female nipples send too much of a sexual signal to ever be displayed publicly is because nipples are the only remaining part of the female upper body left that hasn't been liberated in our society. I think it's hilarious that we've actually reached a point where, in some places, females can wear pasties at beaches (or even in strip clubs) to avoid prosecution under local public indecency laws. That's beyond ridiculous and an amazing idea to get this issue moved forward. I'd love to see large groups of women in pasties storming beaches while people gasp before they understand why they're gasping.

 

As for your personal question, I've never done that but it is a common behavior amongst females (and some males) which has, and always will, continue to exist because it's one area where women are usually in control. Men often go through dates wondering if they're going to get laid. Women usually know before the date even starts. That won't change if our society finally loses the taboo over female nipples long after the taboo on female cleavage has been lost. Sexual signals will always remain, and they'll continue to involve cleavage displays as long as males continue to love boobs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on July 3, 2011 at 11:39pm

Ah, but inured is not the same thing as immune.  The sexual signal would still be there, it would just be interpreted a bit differently.  Social norms may change the exact meaning of non-verbal signals, but they don't change our biology. 

 

I am not trying to defend indecency laws, by the way, merely to say that I understand what prompted them and don't think they are based purely on religion.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by J. Ratzinger on July 3, 2011 at 2:23pm

We are more than our biology Mo Trauen! We are no longer base animals, but human beings now, so we can be expected to control our primitive sexual urges until such time as they are appropriate between consenting adults, and merely seeing a topless woman on the beach, or walking down the street or shopping for groceries, is not automatically an invitation to sex, anymore that it is for a Muslim man to use that similar excuse when they rape a woman whose hair was exposed in public. She was asking for it because she was on display like a slut.

 

What is at issue here is I believe a matter of gender equality for females in a modern age. Females who should be free to dress in public in whatever covered or exposed manner a man is permitted to do. If a restaurant required shirts and shoes, then fine, shirts and shoes for both sexes, but it should not be allowed that you, your son or father are legally permitted to mow your lawn, tend the barbecue or paint the fence topless if you like, when your girlfriend, wife, mother or daughter would be arrested for doing the same thing in the same place. 

 

People would be all googly eyes for a while, but in a relatively short time, the novelty of saggy tits, and sunburned nipples would wear off, just as it has in many parts of the world who have granted this clothing equality to both sexes.

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mo Trauen on July 3, 2011 at 2:31pm

Many people bridle at the idea of biology driving their behavior.  Being self-aware and complicated may make us more than biological automatons to an extent, but never doubt that the beast is still lurking within.

 

I am not defending the idea of prudishness.  I think the idea of having laws against nudity is ridiculous.  Whether people want to do things that might be interpreted as sending a sexual signal or not is not the business of the government. 

 

What my previous answer tried to do was explain why such attitudes prevail.  It may well be that we could all get used to a different paradigm, but I suspect that true adjustment would require a generation or two.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dustin on July 3, 2011 at 3:10pm

terrific post. I think many women just don't realize the sexual attraction of their breasts and nipples.

Women , your breasts and nipples are pure attraction to men. Men want to devour them. I still consider it to be a traffic hazard if women were walking around the streets with bouncing titties. At least it would be for me ... can't speak for other men and their abilities to 'not stare' while driving.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• 19
• …
• 23
• Next ›
• Page