the naughty nipple
In another post, Lessie writes:
I just had an experience with nudity and sexuality that’s been bothering me. I went to a lingerie/sex toy store (in the spirit of the recent re-referral to the sex talk post) just to check out what was there. I noticed that on some of the mesh pieces, the nipples of the models had been computer generated out. Then, when I got to the toy part of the store I noticed that where women’s nipples would have been, there were small white stickers stuck over the pictures (not the full boob, just the nipple). It struck me as odd since they had other toys there in the shape of very erect male members, but no efforts had been made to cover those. I asked one of the sales clerks what was going on, and she said that some people brought their kids in and that the owner was wanting to keep things more appropriate. I admit I was angered to be reminded that having breasts and nipples was shameful, or inappropriate but having clearly sexed up male parts wasn’t. Am I the only one bothered by such things?
Now, for me, the most disturbing part of this is that people bring their children into sex shops. But running a close second, why are “female bits” offensive, when “male bits” (even large, erect male bits) aren’t?
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve heard in ages. A big ol’ dildo is appropriate and a photo of a nipple isn’t? And exactly what moral high ground does a parent toting a tot into a sex shop thing (s)he has to run about making editorial suggestions, anyhow? Snort.
This reminds me of how one of the parenting magazines I seemed to have accrued a fee subscription to (BEFORE I adopted, thank you–the mags seem to have gotten my info from an infertility website and they should all win awards for monumental insensitivity) recently featured the first cover photo of a breastfeeding baby to ever hit the news-stands in the US. The image featrue the gentle curve of the upper breast and then the baby’s sweet little face–no areola, no nipple.
The next month’s issue featured a letter to the editor lambasting the magazine for its “pornographic” cover and canceling a subscription. I admit I prayed before reaching the last line, but my prayers went unanswered–it hailed from Orem, UT. Sigh.
Comment by Janet — August 8, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
You don’t think that perhaps there’s a local ordinance about showing nipples (a la if a topless club uses pasties, then it’s not a topless club)? I wouldn’t necessarily take the word of an employee of a sex shop…
It seems highly probable that a community has an ordinance about showing nipples in a sexually-oriented business but yet not have any qualms about having other sorts of devices for sale.
Comment by Anonymous Coward — August 8, 2007 @ 5:06 pm
#2, but the point is, why is a nipple so offensive when a penis isn’t?
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 5:22 pm
This idea of a naughty nipple is all around us. Look at the stink caused by Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction. Look at gossip magazines - dresses can be cut down to the belly button and up to the pubic bone but the minute there’s a hint of nipple, it’s quickly covered up with cartoon stars. But we all have nipples - male nipples aren’t treated with such caution - and nipples aren’t primarily a sexual organ. So why have we drawn the line at female nipples?
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
I will say that amongst some conservative Mormons any “private” portion of the body regularly earns “dirty” labeling. A friend of mine received a sober phone call from one of her son’s friend’s parents complaining that the little guy had been using obscene language while playing. My friend asked what the word was; the mother said, “oh, I can’t say it.” Friend: “how do I know what to tell him not to say?” Other parent: he said (lowered voice, horrified whisper) ‘penis.’”
I grew up equating body words with swearing as well. My mom still pronounces “breasts” roughly the same way she would say “pornography” and I doubt any power on earth would get her to say “penis.” Maybe it’s partly generational.
Comment by Janet — August 8, 2007 @ 5:39 pm
My mom still likes to the tell the story of how she overheard my five-year-old brother and a friend whispering in the bathroom one day. The friend was trying to get my brother to look at some of my dad’s “Easyrider” magazines that he had found lying around. My brother glanced at them and said something like “what’s the big deal? Those are for feeding babies.”
Comment by FoxyJ — August 8, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
In our culture the penis is much more “naughty” than the female nipple. I’m sure if there were pictures of naked men on packaging the crotches would have been covered up. But there’s not much you can do to sanitize a dildo. The explanation for all of this is that people who take their kids to sex shops are dumb idiots.
Comment by Tom — August 8, 2007 @ 5:45 pm
I think it was stupid. But I can’t get behind the idea that our society is horrified by nipples and not by erect penises. Which shows up more often on film? Yes, some people are upset when a nipple appears on ‘family’ TV (or a breast in a magazine)–does anyone really think that those same people would be fine with the Kanamara Festival? (Link not for the faint of heart)
Comment by dangermom — August 8, 2007 @ 5:46 pm
Also, I have to say that I routinely see actresses on TV wearing shirts that make their nipples quite easy to see, at least the outline. I don’t approve of it, but nipples are everywhere. I can’t agree that we can draw some sort of conclusion about nipples and society from one incident in a sex shop.
Comment by dangermom — August 8, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
And covering a body part up doesn’t mean you think it’s dirty. For most of us it’s just keeping private what should be kept private.
Comment by Tom — August 8, 2007 @ 5:49 pm
Yes!
Comment by lisa — August 8, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
Okay, if we’re talking about society in general, I can’t disagree with you. But why should a female nipple even come close in the Offense-o-meter with an erect penis? Mathew McConaughy (or however you spell his name) walks around with his nipples showing all the time. The guy doesn’t seem to own a shirt. That’s not offensive, but put the same nipples on a woman and suddenly you must cover them up? How does that make sense?
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 6:15 pm
JERRY: Did you look at look at this picture carefully?
ELAINE: Carefully?
JERRY: Because I’m not sure and and correct me if I’m wrong but I think I see … a nipple.
ELAINE: What?
JERRY: Here. Take a look. What, what is that?
ELAINE: (gasps) Oh my God! That’s my nipple.
JERRY: That’s what I thought.
ELAINE: That’s my nipple. My nipple’s exposed. I sent this card to hundreds of people! My parents. My boss. Uh, Nana and Papa.
JERRY: DIDN’T YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE?
ELAINE: Oh God I didn’t notice. Oh, what am I going to do? You know your whole life you go through painstaking efforts to hide your nipple and then BOOM, suddenly hundreds of people get their own personal shot of it…
JERRY: What? So what? It’s a nipple. A little round circular protuberance. What’s the big deal? See everybody’s got them. See I got them.
KRAMER: I got them too.
JERRY: Everybody’s got them.
Comment by Rusty — August 8, 2007 @ 6:25 pm
Ah, Rusty, I have to admit I almost referenced that episode of Seinfeld! I love it! “You wanna see my Christmas card? HERE! Here’s my Christmas card!”
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 6:27 pm
Oh, and FWIW, Tom’s right. You’re talking about two different things here: pictures of private parts and plastic moldings of private parts. I’m sure if there were plastic nipples in the store they wouldn’t be covered up any more than the male parts and likewise I’m sure if there were pictures of men their members would be covered up in the same way the nipples were.
Now if you’re going to complain about the difference between men and women with their shirts off, that’s a valid issue but it’s not the one the writer raised.
Comment by Rusty — August 8, 2007 @ 6:28 pm
Quimby: Because female breasts are sexual characteristics and male breasts aren’t.
Why? I don’t know. I bet there are anthropologists and zoologists who have tackled that question.
From wikipedia:
Comment by Tom — August 8, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
It’s funny, my husband and I had an argument about whether female breasts were “private parts” or not just the other day. I was discussing the Dove pro-age adds. I don’t know how to provide a link, but they are pictures of nude women, all of whom are at least fifty years old. The pictures are tasteful, the women are posed beautifully, but not sexually. Anyway, in one of the pictures, a woman’s breasts were hanging rather visibly (although Dove did make sure here nipples weren’t showing) and my hubby thought it was a little over the top. I disagreed–I thought the coverage was respectful, but still beautiful. He said, “they are private parts are they not?” I said no because he’s aloud to go topless at the beach, and the only reason I’m not is because of social taboo. I didn’t decide to have breasts just to annoy men. Mine just protrude more, I don’t think that should make them shameful, though.
As for the breastfeeding thing, don’t get me started. My friends who are new moms are doing all kinds of acrobatics trying to cover up with a blanket cause they’re afraid they might offend someone. I just don’t know how to broach the subject and reassure them that as long as they’re comfortable, they need make no such efforts around me (I certainly don’t do so around them). I heard about that magazine thing somewhere else as well. No wonder breastfeeding is still so difficult. Not only can some women just not handle it with work etc. (thank you crappy maternity leave), but there’s such a complex about women’s breasts that a small majority of Americans say that breastfeeding isn’t appropriate for public outings.
Comment by Lessie — August 8, 2007 @ 6:31 pm
Okay, Tom, now I’m thinking of that episode of the Office - the English one - where Ricky Gervais’s character goes out on a date, and compliments a woman on her necklace. He comments that necklaces were designed to draw attention to the breasts. She tells him it was her mother’s and she’s dead now. He says something totally inappropriate like, “Your mother must have had very nice breasts.” And it’s all downhill from there . . . Hilarious.
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
sigh. forgot to refresh before typing my comment. is it bad that I think the wikipedia thing is ridiculous? “Well, let’s see, let’s put a butt on the front of the females so the men will mate with them.” Gah.
Comment by Lessie — August 8, 2007 @ 6:34 pm
So there you have it: eroticization of the female breast is responsible for the link between romantic relationships and sex in humans. If it wasn’t for that men wouldn’t cuddle afterward. Think about that the next time you complain about the double standard.
Comment by Tom — August 8, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
Rusty, #15. That’s actually part of the issue for me even though I failed to mention it explicitly. I just got in a hurry when typing my comment. However, I don’t know if that’s where Quimby wants to go with this.
Comment by Lessie — August 8, 2007 @ 6:37 pm
But private parts aren’t shameful. They’re just private. I’m not ashamed of my breasts, I’m rather fond of them actually, but that doesn’t mean that I want to show them to everyone. After all, hidden things can be more fun.
Comment by dangermom — August 8, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
is it bad that I think the wikipedia thing is ridiculous?
Not necessarily, but you should be just as skeptical of explanations that say it’s all just socialization. Humans are animals. There are often evolutionary stories that explain some of our traits pretty well.
Comment by Tom — August 8, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
I was watching “Dr. 90210″ (I studied ‘televised for entertainment’ cosmetic surgery awhile back) and a genetically male transsexual was getting breast implants. On plastic surgery shows, they usually blur out the nipples whilst the female patient gets breast implants, heaven forbid we be distracted from the grotesque display of surgery on screen by a nipple. Anyway, when the transsexual’s nipples were coded ‘male’ (i.e., s/he didn’t have implants yet,) there was no blur. But the second the implants went into the incision, the nipples were blurred. Does this seem odd to anyone? The nipple itself *did not change*, just the implied gender of the nipple. Female nipples are naughty, even if the person who has them is actually (still) a man. I’m sure this blurring was to keep the FCC happy, but it still bothers me.
As to the covered nipples in the sex shop, I have no idea. That seems like it should be a safe space for exposed bits, both male and female…
Comment by VirtualM — August 8, 2007 @ 6:47 pm
I am very aware that humans are animals as well. And I realize the line between socialization and evolution is sometimes fuzzy, but I think VirtualM’s anecdote is telling in the way we see nipples. I think it’s a problem and in this case, I think the problem is largely due to socialization.
Comment by Lessie — August 8, 2007 @ 6:53 pm
I don’t think you can make an evolution argument on this one. Most “primitive” cultures have/had exposed breasts - male and female. It doesn’t seem to make a bit of difference when it comes to mating.
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 6:57 pm
re: #5 - I want my boys to be able to say penis, it’s a medical term. It will be difficult to have medical exams, and to report certain criminal acts if the work cannot be uttered. In my house, I have pointed out that for some reason, that particular body part has MANY names, but penis is the only one that is acceptable.
Comment by Josette — August 8, 2007 @ 7:16 pm
This is either not true, Lessie got it wrong, or the store employees were just pulling Lessie’s chain. Running a distant, distant fourth on the possible explanations list is possibility that this particular sex store is operated by a deranged, nipple-fascist lunatic.
Having patronized my share of sex stores (once because I needed change for a dollar, once to use the restroom, once because I needed directions to an elderly day care center where I was going to volunteer, and once because I mistook it for a novelty shop), I can tell you with some degree of assurance that nipples are celebrated with the same degree of unabashed freedom as penises and vaginas.
But hey, I don’t want to spoil the fun, Nipplegate it is…
Comment by Matt Thurston — August 8, 2007 @ 7:39 pm
I’m more concerned that the excuse they gave was that people brought their kids in, and that’s why the nipples were covered.
This strikes me as odd because if they’re the kind of parent to bring their kids in, I don’t really think they’re concerned if they see a nipple or two or twenty.
Besides, I’d rather the kids see nipples than penises ( if I had to pick out of the two).
Comment by Liz W. — August 8, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Quimby, either I don’t understand your point in #26, or you don’t seem to understand the evolutionary argument. What is the antecedent of “it” that doesn’t make any difference? Do any of the cultures you refer to have both flat-chested females with prominent buttocks and large-breasted females with normal buttocks? Have there been studies in any such populations that demonstrate that the two body forms do have equal reproductive success?
Or do I misunderstand your point?
Comment by Left Field — August 8, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
Quimby (3) - I don’t disagree with you. I was just trying to not give the employee too much credit.
Comment by Anonymous Coward — August 8, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
This is not on topic, but why on earth were you in a sex toy shop?
Is it now acceptable for members of the church to go to sex shops?
With the increase in pornography addiction among members of the church, I just find such behavior perplexing.
If I’m misunderstanding anything, please enlighten me.
Comment by Pixie — August 8, 2007 @ 9:10 pm
Another problem mothers have with breastfeeding is that if they have to go back after maternity leave, they don’t get the time or a private place to pump breastmilk. Back to the original topic, there’s really nothing shameful with private parts, but that’s not something to be displayed in public. It’s always best to leave some things to the imagination.
Comment by Adrienne — August 8, 2007 @ 9:22 pm
What?! Why would a sex toy store need to be sanitized for the kids?
Where I live, an ID indicating that you’re over 18 is required to enter the sex store. Or to get past the costume and novelty section anyways.
Comment by Jessica — August 8, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
LeftField, I’m sorry, I did a pretty crappy job getting my point across in #26. Really, my point has less to do with the evolutionary argument of where breasts came from than with an argument that breasts are sexual by nature, and not because we as a society have given them that meaning. Tom seemed to be quoting the evolutionary argument to lend credence to the idea that breasts are innately sexual, even without our cultural baggage. This is what I dispute. In cultures where bare breasts were/are the norm, they are/were not seen as sexual. That’s what I was trying to say, but I said it very, very poorly. I don’t think there is an intrinsic, internal link between breasts and sex. (Yes, you can argue that breasts are especially sensitive and this leads to female arousal; but my ear lobes are sensitive, and I’m not asked to wear ear-muffs.)
On the wider issue of breasts being frontal bums, I’ve heard this argument before, and while I can kind of see where they’re coming from, I don’t know that there’s enough of a resemblence between breasts and bum. They both protude. That’s about as far as it goes for resemblence. Other than that, my breasts look nothing like my bum.
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
Quimby: In cultures where bare breasts were/are the norm, they are/were not seen as sexual.
So there are two options: 1) the “natural” state is that breasts are sexual and the “primitive” cultures that you refer to have socialized away from the “natural” state or 2) the “natural” state is that breasts are not sexual and our culture has socialized them to be regarded sexually. How do you distinguish between these two alternatives? Is there some evidence to help us out? Do we assume that there is no socialization going on in “primitive” cultures? Are they assumed to be pure and “natural”? And are you sure that breasts are/were not at all regarded sexually in those cultures? Just because they’re not covered up doesn’t mean that they aren’t regarded sexually, be it consciously or subconsciously .
Other than that, my breasts look nothing like my bum.
That reminds me of a South Park episode where the guys take a picture of Cartman’s butt with nipples drawn on with magic markers and use it to curry favor with the “boob”-obsessed sixth graders, who fall for it. Hilarious.
But seriously, in light of my ignorance with respect to anthropological and biological evidence [which ignorance, I suspect, is shared by every commenter here except maybe Left Field who, if I remember correctly, is an evolutionary biologist] I’m pretty much agnostic on the question of whether or not the tendency of humans from many cultures and times to regard female breasts sexually is a biologically ingrained thing, though I do tend to see most widespread human traits as having at least some “hard wiring” involved. But despite my agnosticism, I find the out-of-hand dismissal of theories that suggest that there’s more than socialization going on to be unreasonable. For any given phenomenon, people seem to choose between socialization on one hand or hard wiring on the other based solely on what suits them.
For the record, the frontal bum story sounds funny to me too. Like the one I heard from some sort of scientist about lips being a representation of the labia. But I don’t have enough knowledge to dismiss these theories out of hand in favor of something I like better.
Comment by Tom — August 8, 2007 @ 11:17 pm
I just thought I’d throw this out there like fuel on a fire, but I’m sure there’s been some sort of Oedipal explanation as to the fascination with breasts. Baby boys like mommy’s boobs, and grown boys like other women’s boobs. I’m not sure how to account for the cultural differences, though.
Comment by A different Jessica — August 8, 2007 @ 11:46 pm
Well, you’re right, those are all excellent questions. Of course there is socialisation going on in “primitive” cultures. I would highly doubt there’s ever been a culture without socialisation. My understanding is that anthropologists don’t believe there are any “pure” cultures left, anyway, if there ever were any in the first place. (The idea being that most cultures tend to come into contact with at least one or two other cultures in the process of travelling, trading, etc., and that coming in contact will almost inevitably change the culture.)
Any time we look at another culture, we do so with our own bias. So, for instance, while every piece of literature I’ve read about anthropological experiences in “primitive” cultures suggests if not says outright that breasts aren’t sexual – well, first, consider that my reading isn’t comprehensive, and second, consider that the writers are either coming at it from their own perspective or relying on first-hand information which may or may not be accurate. (See the controversy over Margaret Mead and her studies in Samoa.) Certainly there are stories of cultures that were bare-breasted that covered up when they converted to Christianity or Islam. To me that seems consistent with the idea that breast = sex is dictated by culture and not by something internal. But I’m sure there are alternate theories out there (eg, missionaries brought clothes so there was now an option of covering up which serves a practical purpose in protecting the skin).
I don’t believe breasts are innately sexual, and that may very well have to do with the fact that I’m a straight female, so breasts really do nothing for me. I mean, I find the variation incredible, but they don’t arouse me. But more than that, they don’t serve a sexual purpose: women who don’t have breasts (flat-chested, have had them removed) can still have very fulfilling sex lives, have children, etc. (In fact, anecdotally, flat-chested women often seem to be better at breast-feeding.) Do they serve a sexual purpose in attracting mates? Well, it really depends on the time and the place. Look at the 20th Century – there were periods of time when flat-chested women were far more attractive than large-breasted women. Was that society? Yes, probably; but a man coming of age at a time and place where small breasts were considered sexy, would probably prefer a small-breasted woman.
Comment by Quimby — August 8, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
#37, I’ve thought of that, and felt quite squeamish . . .
Pixie, not everyone who goes to a sex shop has or will develop a porn addiction. Nobody is asking you to go or telling you you should go. But if Lessie wants to, why shouldn’t she? I’m feeling brave after reading about Lessie’s experience because I’ve wanted to go for years now, and I’m too chicken. Next time I find myself in town without my daughter, I’m going!
Comment by Quimby — August 9, 2007 @ 12:44 am
I’m not a guy, so I don’t really know why breasts are sexy… but I don’t have a problem with it. I have 1 child, who I nursed and
both dh and I agree that breasts are primarily for nursing a baby, but we enjoy them as part of our sex life too…
What I don’t get is the nipple being the taboo thing. Maybe it’s because I’m not a guy… but the nipple seems to be the least attractive part to me (this is weird to try to put into words)—
I think the curve of the breast seems prettier, more sexy, but it is apparently fine for women to be on tv with tons of clevage, but DON’T let that nipple show.
Guys, Is the nipple that much more attractive/ titallating (hehe)?
Comment by Me — August 9, 2007 @ 3:04 am
Yeah, I’ve only been to one in Northern Utah, but the minute you walk in the door there is a security guard asking for your id. Is it not like this in every store? I believe it even has as sign saying “No Children Allowed” somewhere on the counter.
Why do you think someone was going to a sex shop? At least in the one my wife have been too, porn is a very small part of it. It’s mostly novelties, toys, games, lotions, clothing, etc.
Comment by jjohnsen — August 9, 2007 @ 4:38 am
#37 - Baby girls like their momma’s breasts too, but most women in our culture don’t grow up being obsessed with breasts. I don’t think Oedipus has anything to do with it.
Comment by tisheli — August 9, 2007 @ 7:15 am
Dave Barry wrote a book about his trip to Japan. In it he mentions the pornography that is sold in public view in many places, and you often see businessmen on the trains openly reading porn. But an unusual Japanese law mandates that depictions of female genitalia must be blurred out, and in fact there is a division of the post office that does nothing but scratch out female genitalia from porn through the mail. He describes that it looks as if a rain fcloud moved over just that part of the woman’s body.
Anyway, my point (and I do have one) is that different cultures have different taboos about different parts of the body.
Comment by Phouchg — August 9, 2007 @ 8:09 am
Matt Thurston #28–I’m afraid your fourth distant, distant reason may be the problem. I live in South Eastern Idaho. As far as I’m concerned, that should be explanation enough :-). If you ever have reason to be up this way, hubby and I would be glad to give you a tour so that you can see for yourself the little white stickers (cut from those little white mailing label thingies) and the computer generated nipple-less breasts.
Pixie–this store isn’t an adult movie/book store. It simply sells lingerie and sex toys. I realize though that everyone’s comfort level is different. Also, I’m kind of a borderland type of Mormon anyway, so that may also influence my decisions somewhat.
I must also admit to my complete ignorance in the field of evolutionary biology (so many different degrees, so little time and money). I also realize that breasts can serve sexual purposes. However, I think that cultural pressures are responsible for placing them solely in that context and therefore making the female breast so taboo.
For those who label breasts as private parts, well, I disagree, so there’s the rub. I have no problem with hubby walking around the beach without a shirt on and I don’t feel like the shape of my chest should prevent me from doing so. No big deal though, I wouldn’t dream of forcing anyone to take their shirt off–choice and all that.
The Oedipus complex is somewhat squishy, huh? I can see it as a possibility, but as tisheli said, baby girls love mommy’s boobs too, so where do we go from there? Perhaps girls learn to let go of their fetish as they grow older and are socialized into the female groups, while boys, according to Freud, feel the need to separate themselves from the female group at some point and so start to taboo breasts as something “other” and limit their exposure. I don’t know. I realize that gender issues seriously limit this argument. And I don’t know enough about Freud from a psychological stand point to know how valid his theories are in todays psychological circles. Freud was just a fun way to interpret literature in my line of business.
Comment by Lessie — August 9, 2007 @ 8:32 am
#2: “I wouldn’t necessarily take the word of an employee of a sex shop…”
Why not? Is there something inherently dishonest about working for a sex shop? Oddly enough, some of these employees are a good deal more trustworthy than your average white-collar professional or businessman. For starters, by nature of their interaction with customers, they learn the interests and predilections of those customers. They are expected to keep that information *highly* confidential, and most do just that. I know of a situation where one longstanding employee made an unfortunate choice to gossip about a particular customer’s interests. The owner found out, and that employee was immediately left looking for a new job.
Comment by Nick Literski — August 9, 2007 @ 9:04 am
People take their kids into A sex shop?!!!! Hey I have no problem with marital aids but leave the kiddos at home.
Comment by berrykat — August 9, 2007 @ 10:41 am
Quimby,
You are using Lesslie’s anecdote to make an absolutely absurd claim that our society is more offended by the public display of nipples than erect penises. Does anyone here believe that this is the case? It defies every other data point on the topic, so I would suggest it is your conclusion which needs fixing on this one and not society. Also, why does is it relevant to argue about whether breasts are innately sexual. They are sexualized in our society, so society must treat them accordingly in some situations. To do otherwise would be ridiculous.
Lesslie (#17),
Are you seriously arguing that breasts are not a “private part”? Would you feel equally comfortable with someone shaking your breast at church as shaking your hand? Come on.
Comment by Jacob J — August 9, 2007 @ 10:44 am
Jacob J #47–I am seriously arguing that breasts are not a private part. As for shaking my breast at church, your analogy is flawed. People in the LDS church don’t go to church topless. Shaking men’s pecs isn’t considered an appropriate greeting comparable to shaking hands. I don’t think I would have to worry about it either way. Men do go topless on beaches, however, and no one considers it a problem (and no one shakes their pecs in greeting either). So while I wouldn’t go topless to work, school, or church, I would go topless at a topless beach where such things are allowed. I don’t feel the need to lead a revolution at a non-topless beach regardless of how I feel about my breasts. As I said, I’m not condemning anyone for covering up, I just don’t think it’s that big a deal.
Comment by Lessie — August 9, 2007 @ 10:57 am
Lesslie,
Obviously you are correct that shaking each other’s chests is not the traditional greeting in our society. Agreed. Being topless at a topless beach is probably not a big deal, just like being nude at a nude beach is probably not a big deal. If you are fine with following the social conventions (which your #48 seems to indicate) and you agree that socially breasts are considered private, then what do you really mean by your claim that breasts “are not a private part”? Are you saying our society should be different, but being such as it is you are willing to not rock the boat?
Comment by Jacob J — August 9, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Essentially, I guess that is what I’m saying. I think that it shouldn’t be a big deal, that it’s a double standard, but as far as boats to rock, I’m not sure that this is one of the more important ones to rock at the moment. I think a shift in perceptions would help change things without having to cause a stink. I suppose I could go topless to our local lake, get cited, maybe jailed, etc. But perceptions here are such that I wouldn’t make anyone think, I’d just piss everyone off. So in the meantime, I’ll continue to broach the subject carefully, quietly, and just plant seeds here and there. Anyway, I think this is getting away from the discussion somewhat. Quimby didn’t post this just to get my opinion on such matters.
I think the anecdote in the original comment is problematic and I think VirtualM’s anecdote earlier in the conversation is problematic as well. I think it’s troubling to send the message to women and girls that their nipples, which they can’t help having, are bad, or slutty, etc.
Comment by Lessie — August 9, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
50 posts on the common nipple…I think Satan is winning! :0)
Comment by LAGirrrl — August 9, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Hi, everybody! I’m a newby here, so please excuse my farcical flapdoodle. But speaking strictly as a Mormon male, I’m conflicted about nipples and breasts on public display.
In my humble opinion, females are, by definition, beautiful. Spiritually, physically – you name it – they’re the bee’s knees, and I thank my maker they grace this earth. As an artist, I’m in thrall to their naked form – though I try very hard not to overindulge this fascination. Flat out, I love breasts and nipples and wish women could parade their generous works of art more openly.
Conversely, as a Latter Day Saint, I’m loath to do anything that offends the Lord. So from a “Yes, you can do this – no, you can’t do that” point of view, disrobing mommy bags in public is strictly taboo. I have yet to hear a general authority declare naked bra-buddies bobbing around the local supermarket is A-OK.
So as a red-blooded American male artist, heck yes – I’m all for great lookin’ gob-stoppers. As a Mormon elder, though, I have to defer to the Lord’s will and close my eyes.
Comment by pinball — August 9, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
Perhaps part of the “reasoning” is the perception of a woman’s nipples as an erogenous zone? I realize this doesn’t explain the incongruity of Quimby’s original example, but I think it has much to do with the larger societal taboo on showing women’s nipples.
It doesn’t appear to me that American culture generally recognizes that men’s nipples are also an erogenous zone. Gay male culture certainly recognizes this fact.
Then again, this gay man really does not like to see female breasts, so who am I to say?
Comment by Nick Literski — August 9, 2007 @ 12:54 pm
Has a general authority said it’s okay for men to go shirtless? Why have authorities claimed it is okay for men to be shirtless, but restrict women from doing the same?
Although I doubt many women would go shirtless to the supermarket; I never see men in the grocery store without shirts, either. I’m all for equal-opportunity toplessness, although in the appropriate time and place (beach = yes, supermarket = probably not)
Comment by Allyson — August 9, 2007 @ 1:59 pm
IME about the only place you see shirtless Mormon men is in the swimming pool. And some of them are wearing t-shirts.
Comment by dangermom — August 9, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
I was brought up on the line of thinking that immodesty offends God, as is mentioned in comment 52. This idea led me to feel very conflicted about my body. I was embarrassed about my body, and I was almost afraid of it because I didn’t want to use it in a way that would offend God. Being immodest is considered a big sin to many people in the church, and the ones who are labeled as immodest are blamed for other people’s inappropriate thoughts. These attitudes also affect the males of the church. It can lead them to viewing the body as tantilizing instead of natural and normal. This can lead to the objectification of women. Adding to my problem was that it was hard to see myself as a whole person because I had been told that my eternal nature was tied to my gender.
I do not believe that immodesty offends God. We are the ones who slap a value on someone’s attire. Let me give a simple example: If you show a picture of a naked woman to an infant, a teenager, and an artist, you are likely to get very different responses.
Comment by Wild Horses — August 9, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
If someone else brought this up, sorry for being redundant. The major hypothesis I’ve heard to explain female breasts is that they’re a fitness/youth indicator. Only young, healthy females have full, perky breasts. From that perspective breasts are no more sexual than full red lips. In fact, breasts may be less sexual since full, reddened lips are supposedly suggestive of the “lips” of the vagina.
I’ve never understood why penis and vagina are dirty words, either, though I do admit to feeling a little uncomfortable uttering them in some company. And I really don’t understand why breasts are bad on women, or even supposed to be kept all that private. Even as a little girl, before breasts develop, you’re supposed to keep a shirt on to be “modest.”
Comment by kristine N — August 9, 2007 @ 3:19 pm
More naked bewbs are fine by me, but only hot chicks please.
Comment by Carlton — August 9, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
pixie,
i am in so much trouble if this is true.
Comment by mfranti — August 9, 2007 @ 3:32 pm
I don’t have a lot to say on this subject, but I will say that shirtless men aren’t exactly accepted in LDS culture. As far as I know, at BYU, “shirts” and “skins” isn’t allowed, nor is it allowed in church cultural halls.
Take that for whatever it is worth.
Comment by SilverRain — August 9, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
I think that when it comes to modesty, it’s the intent that matters. A photograph of a naked woman in an art museum is beautiful to me. The intent was to the show how beautiful and feminine her body was. However, the same woman with her picture in a Playboy magazine, taken to sexually arouse someone, is immodest and wrong to me. A person breastfeeding her child has no sexual intent, and is just caring for her child. However, a girl flashing her breasts for beads at a Mardi Gras party, would be immodest.
Getting back to the original blog, though, I can’t understand why nipples are “wrong” and a penis wouldn’t be… and what kinda crazy people bring their children into a sex shop???
Comment by aprilshowers — August 9, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
Nick #53–I hope by your statement that you simply mean women’s breasts aren’t sexually attractive to you–I hope you don’t mean to imply that they are ugly or disgusting.
Carlton #58–it’s attitudes like that that re-enforce society’s idea of beauty–which is severely skewed. Not that thin women aren’t beautiful, but they are by no means the only representation of female beauty. To assert that they are is leaving out the beauty found in older women, women whose bodies are forever changed by childbirth, and women who have larger body types.
Also, one other thing that I was thinking of today. Another reason I thought the penis/boob issue was problematic is that there is something definitely sexual about an erect male penis. However, I don’t think the same thing applies to a woman’s breasts. So I still don’t know why one was okay to display while the other wasn’t.
Comment by Lessie — August 9, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
This may not make a lot of sense because I am not a terribly good writer. I think that covering body parts contributes to their becoming sexualized. Think of the scandal of a woman showing a little bit of leg 100 years ago. Then you have cultures where women wear very little clothing and breasts are not regarded as sexual. I also think of the recent baring of the midriff. Uncovering what had previously been covered is seen to be sexy. I don’t find my shoulders to be particularly alluring but apparently wearing a tank top is viewed as immodest. I think that this idea of “modesty” (which is very much a cultural construct-see the burka) is what makes us view certain body parts as sexual. I am not advocating nudity but perhaps if we weren’t so shy to whip out our breasts to feed our babies without worrying about who saw our nipples we could change the perception of breasts a little.
Comment by Marie — August 9, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Meh, that only explains AMERICAS fascination with breasts.
IMO, sexuality in America is rather abnormal. As a country
we have one of the highest amounts of sex crimes (ie rape,
molestation), sex addiction, pornography addiction, and
sexual dysfunction. Why? Well, i think that is for another
thread completely (and I’d be interested to see it discussed )
In Primitive societies which are far closer to nature than we are,
a breast and nipple are to be seen freely in both genders, And much less sexualized. You would think it would be the other way around because they are primitive, and often live by instinct.
However it appears that the more modernized and puritanical
a society gets, the more abnormally sexual it becomes.
Also would like to comment that some guys (myself included)
are more aroused by different features, such as thighs, hips, or rear ends. Add that to the fact that breast size has little to do with successful nursing ( women with a cups can do it just as well as d cups).
Plus, breast size varies…some women are completely FLAT,
flatter than a guy.And despite the fact that they are flat, their nipple is still seen as something lewd (in America.)
Seems a bit inconsistent don’t you think?
Taking all of this information into consideration, i doubt
this theory has any validity…just like the theory that womens vaginas are in the wrong place and will eventually evolve and migrate to her belly button area. Both theories seem equally
preposterous to me.
If indeed “butt” was placed on a womans chest for sexual
reasons, you would think that more women would be
well endowed in that area, however the average cup size is a B.
You would also expect it to be a universally accepted
trait, however many societies are simply not all that
interested in the size of a breast or whether a nipple
is showing.
You would also expect more men to universally
agree. Many guys will tell you they want long legs, or a firm tummy or prefer a woman with nice hips, ive met guys that simply don’t care about breasts.
Just because some scientist says it, doesn’t mean it is true.
And i highly suspect its not, for the simple reason that breasts are not universally sexualized, or arousing. And that the majority of cultures breastfeed in the open without shame or hyper arousal.
Experts are wrong ALL the time, I guess its a good thing I’m
not a an expert . ; )
Bijorn
Comment by Bijorn the Viking — August 9, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Lessie,
Where did I say hot chick = thin chick? Why did you assume that’s what I meant?
Comment by Carlton — August 9, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
Point taken Carlton. So did you mean all of the different definitions of beautiful women that I outlined (which I realize still aren’t all inclusive).
Comment by Lessie — August 9, 2007 @ 6:32 pm
Do we need to trot out Rosalynde’s “breasts and beards” comment again? I admit it is one of my favorites…
Comment by Janet — August 9, 2007 @ 7:49 pm
Do you know, I’m unfamiliar with Rosalynde’s breasts and beards comment. What did she have to say?
Comment by Lessie — August 9, 2007 @ 7:53 pm
I agree with 64 - I think it’s the secrecy surrounding breasts and nipples that make them an object of obsession.
On the topic of nudity in art v/s nudity in dirty magazines (comment 62), I think Latter-day Saints sometimes downplay the degree of sexuality in fine art. I for one, when I see Michaelangelo’s David or Canova’s Psyche Revived by Cupid’s Kiss, I think about sex. Im sorry, but what else am I supposed to think about when I examine David’s finely sculped larger than life genetalia? I think the intent of these artists was to celebrate the beauty of creation, but also the beauty and reality of human sexuality. In fact, many artists believe that human sexual energy and desire is the driving force behind much of the world’s creative output, in visual arts, dance, literature and music. Ballet is extremely sexual. Music can be absolutely erotic (and by music, I don’t mean Britney Spears, I mean Liszt, Wagner and Debussy). And anyone who knows anything about the lives of great artists, um, many of them weren’t exactly chaste.
I’m not saying that we should clothe great sculpture, or only listen to the Mormon Tabernacle Choir (their music is pretty chaste), I think we need to remember that we are inherently sexual creatures, that it is part of our biological and spiritual make-up. I think it’s the denial of that fact that needs to be addressed more than society’s obsession with covering women’s breasts.
Many parts of the body are sexual - men are turned on by women with attractive legs, I am turned on my men with broad shoulders and strong forearms. Most of us don’t feel gulity for noticing and appreciating those features, and they don’t usually become fetishized. We can either learn to love and appreciate women’s breasts as a normal healthy part of our sexual makeup, or continue to shroud them in secrecy and let them remain an object of obsession, guilt, and endless debate.
Comment by Meredith C — August 9, 2007 @ 7:55 pm
Meredith, that’s interesting. I actually think Donatello’s David is much more sexual than Michaelangelo’s. It’s much more provocative.
To me, this is less about modesty than it is about our attitudes towards women’s bodies. It’s all so intertwined I’m not sure I can really say what I want to say, but here goes. I think modesty talk is by its very nature patriarchal. Primarily, it’s men who (try to) tell women what they can and can’t wear. I see it as part of a larger issue of men trying to control women’s bodies, which is a form of attempting to claim some sort of propriety over those bodies. So, women’s bodies are not fully their own.
I’m not advocating nudism as feminism. I’m not advocating dressing provocatively as feminism. But I think when we fully realise that women’s bodies are their own, we will stop sexualising and objectifying them.
Comment by Quimby — August 9, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
re: 63
“Another reason I thought the penis/boob issue was problematic is that there is something definitely sexual about an erect male penis. However, I don’t think the same thing applies to a woman’s breasts.”
I don’t understand why I have to cover up my erect penis in public. I don’t find it to be sexual in anyway. I see one everyday. I’m tired of these women sexualising and objectifying a perfectly natural part of my body.
My point? Just because you don’t view a part of your body as being sexual doesn’t mean that it’s not. From my experience, a boob will cause an erect penis in fairly quick manner. Wouldn’t something that causes something sexual like an “erect male penis” likewise be sexual?
re:71
“But I think when we fully realise that women’s bodies are their own, we will stop sexualising and objectifying them.”
Be careful what you wish for. It’s odd that a website wishing to empower women would encourage them to relinquish the greatest power they have over men.
I just don’t understand why you don’t want your husbands to be sexually aroused over your bodies. Crazy! I wish I had more parts on me that sexually aroused my wife!
re:65
“If indeed “butt” was placed on a womans chest for sexual
reasons, you would think that more women would be
well endowed in that area, however the average cup size is a B.”
That’s why you push them together! Instant cleavage! When I first met my wife she was flat chested, but that didn’t stop me from getting turned on when she took off her shirt!!! Guess what the first thing was that I put in my mouth? The very thing that many on this list want to expose to the world.
Why do you want to take away my pleasure? Why do you want to desensitize me to those things that arouse me and make me want to pleasure my wife? Why do you want to take away this pleasure from your husbands? So you can walk around with your nipples hanging out!? Well if you start doing that, then I’m going to start walking around with my penis hanging out. While it may be uncomfortable and embarassing at first, especially with all the nipples in plain site, eventually the allure of the nipple will fade, and things will settle down into a flacid state, and what a victory it will be for the feminest. Men will find one less thing on your bodies attractive. Yeah!!!
Comment by I Like Boobs — August 10, 2007 @ 6:44 am
From my experience, a boob will cause an erect penis in fairly quick manner.
On a certain level, I think this boils down to whether or not you’re open to the call to take a more sophisticated view of things. Admitting to personally experiencing an erect penis at every boob-sighting is, in my view, somewhat unsophisticated (or, at least, ‘uncomplicated’, or whatever the word is that most aptly describes most 14-year-old pubescent males).
I wish I had more parts on me that sexually aroused my wife!
Perhaps you do, and she just hasn’t bothered to tell you. I’m fully aware of the effect that my six-pack and bulging upper body musculature have on the opposite sex, but I’ve never once been asked to cover up or been made to feel self-conscious at the beach. Why? Because women are cool that way. It’s way more fun to comment on such things in private and sotto voce. Just as it’s way more grown-up to refrain from confusing ’sexy’ with ‘hidden’ …
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 8:17 am
I’d just like to say that boobs were bottles LONG before they were sex objects. I’ve got a cousin who refused to breastfeed because it was “perverted.” Personally, I think it’s perverted that you’d pick the sex object over the bottle.
Comment by ss — August 10, 2007 @ 8:26 am
the greatest power they have over men.
I’m not touching that one, but I don’t mind pointing out that it’s “flaccid”, Jethro.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 8:37 am
ss,
that’s sad, but par for the course in China, where it’s all C-sections and wet nurses … sorry to hear some folks even think that way back home, too.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 8:42 am
re: 73
“Admitting to personally experiencing an erect penis at every boob-sighting is, in my view, somewhat unsophisticated (or, at least, ‘uncomplicated’, or whatever the word is that most aptly describes most 14-year-old pubescent males).”
Did I say that every boob-sighting caused an erection?
re: 74
“I’d just like to say that boobs were bottles LONG before they were sex objects. I’ve got a cousin who refused to breastfeed because it was “perverted.” Personally, I think it’s perverted that you’d pick the sex object over the bottle.”
The penis was a urine dispensing device long before it was a sex object. Am I right? Can we be so sure that the breast was a bottle before it was a sex object? Did Adam lay his hands on the breast of Eve before she had a child? Hmmm…..
re: 75
And it only took 20 minutes for you to notice the misspelling! Great job! Of course, you didn’t have to insult the good country folk that lack your level of pretentiousness, while in the process of ridiculing me. Leave poor Jethro out of this. Don’t insult him by comparing him to me. That’s not very nice. You should compare me to some other idiot that believes boobs should be covered, like Gordon B. Hinckley.
If women don’t view breast as sexual objects then perhaps they should instruct their husbands to not play with the baby bottles in foreplay, or during intercourse. Be like all those European men that don’t play with boobs during sex. Those men who don’t view breasts as sexual objects. Maybe one day American women can be like their European counterparts and never have a nipple sucked unless it’s by their infant child. After all, they are just bottles.
Comment by I Like Boobs — August 10, 2007 @ 9:22 am
From my experience, a boob will cause an erect penis in fairly quick manner.
Did I misquote you?
Did I say that every boob-sighting caused an erection?
Did you not?
You’re right, though, Jethro was never this strident. Nor Gordon B. Hinckley, as far as I know. Of course, I could be wrong. Enlighten me, Gomer.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 9:32 am
For what it’s worth, I agree with the sentiment expressed in #28 … but now, suddenly, with the appearance of “I Like Boobs”, there’s a whole new dimension to Nipplegate that I hadn’t considered … apparently, it really is a pressing issue …
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 9:44 am
Sigh. I don’t know whether I want to get into this or not. But here goes. Chino Blanco’s point about his body being attractive yet publicly allowable is something along the lines I’m thinking. As Nick pointed out, the male nipple can also be an erogenous zone, but men aren’t asked to cover them up. Not a single woman on here has wished that her husband found her breasts unattractive. Indeed there have been a couple of comments about how beautiful human (both male and female) bodies are. Most of our comments about allowing women to go topless has been in context–id est, places where men are also allowed to go topless. Such as beaches. The gym could be problematic for practical reasons.
I guess maybe I’ve come across as advocating nudism. While I’m not opposed to nudism, I don’t really think I would advocate it because I enjoy clothes for aesthetic reasons (which i realize are what can make clothes a class/social issue). I largely agree with Quimby about where modesty stems from. I don’t want to advocate dressing provocatively as feminism either, but I don’t know that leaving skin bare is automatically provocative. I think it’s that assumption that makes it easier for patriarchy to control what women wear.
Comment by Lessie — August 10, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Chino #79–I promise you I’m not lying. I don’t doubt that anywhere else in the U.S., nipples in a sex store wouldn’t cause anyone a second thought. However, here in southeastern Idaho, it’s a whole other story, so to speak. So while this problem may be regional, I doubt it since attitudes similar to it exist outside of sex shops in most areas of the U.S. (otherwise, why would it get so much discussion?).
Comment by Lessie — August 10, 2007 @ 9:50 am
#63:
I would never say female breasts are “ugly” or “disgusting.” On the other hand, I must confess I look at breasts as pecs gone horribly wrong.
Comment by Nick Literski — August 10, 2007 @ 9:51 am
#72:
From my experience, a boob will cause an erect penis in fairly quick manner. Wouldn’t something that causes something sexual like an “erect male penis” likewise be sexual?
Perhaps your mileage may vary. There are many, many things which can cause an erection. Many, if not most of them, are highly idiosyncratic.
Comment by Nick Literski — August 10, 2007 @ 9:55 am
Lessie,
For what it’s worth, if I were to hit the beach nude, it’d be “game over”, as they like to say here in Taiwan. It ain’t “Boogie Nights” in my house (i.e., I’m no Mark Wahlberg), and my wife is no Maggie Q. We’ve had kids and that’s brought it’s ups and downs (no pun intended). Boobs change, but it’s the girl wearing them, who she is, that makes them sexy, not the other way around.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 9:58 am
#73 Chino Blanco:
I’m fully aware of the effect that my six-pack and bulging upper body musculature have…
I guess it would be inappropriate to call for photographic evidence? Hehehee…
Comment by Nick Literski — August 10, 2007 @ 10:04 am
Lessie #81 - I’m not doubting you. I just haven’t seen anything yet to shake my belief that the erect male member remains, in fact, pretty much the biggest taboo going.
This is all anecdotal, of course, and mainly from my life on the F line to and from Brooklyn.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 10:08 am
Nick,
Of all people, you should know I’m willing to say anything to win an argument … Lazy + Sarcasm = Me.
Of course, I do sport a mean six-pack, but hell if you’re ever gonna see it
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 10:11 am
ROTFLOL!!!!
“Six-packs” of beer…oops…ROOT beer….don’t count!
Comment by Nick Literski — August 10, 2007 @ 10:21 am
Nick,
This is now officially a threadjack. There are important issues at hand to be discussed and you and I would do better to leave the playing field clear for those with considered thoughts on the matter of breasts. In any case, I’ve got 300 ab crunches to do, not to mention my Tai Chi …
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Chino #86–I mostly agree with you, that’s why this experience kind of threw me for a loop.
Chino and Nick–you guys are hilarious :-). (My emoticons don’t appear to be working).
Comment by Lessie — August 10, 2007 @ 10:27 am
“I Like Boobs”: I hear crickets
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 10:41 am
All I know is the title of this blog thread sounds like a name for a lesbian bar.
Comment by Nick Literski — August 10, 2007 @ 11:11 am
#92: Such an uncanny grasp of the obvious … Damn chortling is interfering with my whois search … dammit, wouldn’t you know, naughtynipples.com is already taken!
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 10, 2007 @ 11:26 am
re: 78
I did not say that every boob sighting caused an erection. If they did then I would have erections all day long, as my wife is currently breastfeeding. However, when it’s time to get down to business, and she takes of her shirt, BINGO, my following statement becomes true: boobs will cause an erection in a fairly quick manner. Of course that’s just my experience.
Do women really want men to stop touching, caressing, and stimulating their breasts? Are breasts not affected during sexual stimulation? Do women really want men to stop being aroused by their bodies? Are men not turned on by getting to view that which is kept from the rest of the world? Why would a woman not want to turn on her husband? If women don’t want to turn on their husbands, then should husbands stop trying to turn on our wives? Perhaps we should do away with all human sexuality. Why stop at the female breast? Why not desexualize the whole female body?
Heaven forbid a woman be desirable to a man.
Comment by I Like Boobs — August 10, 2007 @ 11:35 am
Shouldn’t it be www.thenaughtynipple.com ?
Comment by Nick Literski — August 10, 2007 @ 11:46 am
You guys are having entirely too much fun LOL. Your link doesn’t work Nick–or was that just bait for the naughty minded?
Comment by Lessie — August 10, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Lessie,
It was a proposed URL for a lesbian bar. Keep up!
Comment by Nick Literski — August 10, 2007 @ 12:13 pm
Sigh. I thought it might be, but I’ve always been a little slow on the uptake. It’s funny now that I get it (how nerdy am I anyway?)
Comment by Lessie — August 10, 2007 @ 12:32 pm
Dude, what are you talking about?
And fyi for the wise im a guy.
Take pleasure away? My friend you are a riot, yeah im sure tribes people all have extremely unfulfilling sex lives just because
womens breasts aren’t instant-boner-inducing pockets of fat. (insert sarcasm) So if you want to keep your “toys” i suggest you don’t visit any place with open nudity . I think what bothers me more is people being abnormally obsessed with a piece of anatomy. Someone even suggested open nudity as a remedy for porn addiction. Who knows if that would work?
That might be part of the key why America has a higher rate of sex crimes and porn addiction than men in Europe. Who
knows, but there is a reason for sure.Im all for the nipple losing some allure so people aren’t lookingat my wife like a slut for breastfeeding our daughter , or(shudder) getting aroused by it.
And despite what you think it wont make breasts somehow ugly.
Oh yeah, btw…don’t ever equate breastfeeding with piss thats really disrespectful and insulting.
Bijorn
Comment by Bijorn the Viking — August 10, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
Also, one last thing since it looks like this one’s dead. Chino, number 84 is kind of how it is at our house. I’ve had kids, my body isn’t perfect anymore, but I’m comfortable with it, my hubby’s comfortable with it. That’s why I think it’s kind of exaggerating to say that toplessness would throw the entire male population over the edge. I think it’s selfish of all of us to say the only people allowed to wear or not wear certain clothing are the ones with perfect bodies. I think if we could redefine our concepts of beauty, it would make it less stressful for all parties concerned to show a little skin in the appropriate contexts.
Comment by Lessie — August 11, 2007 @ 8:37 am
In the meantime, while we wait for that day to arrive when all of us have learned to be comfortable in our own skins, we can at least have a little fun pushing the prudes among us “over the edge” with our unabashed flaunting of our “flawed” but beautiful bodies … we may chuckle at the sight of the babushkas summering on the shores of the Black Sea, but I would choose a life as Emma Goldman’s paramour before that of hooking up with any of the sad sacks that infest the covers of our glossy magazines … If the brain is our primary sex organ, I suppose that most Americans have been effectively neutered by the insipid portrayal of human sexuality on display in the USA’s newsstands and teevee shows …
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 11, 2007 @ 1:08 pm
re 95:
So, do your wife a favor, and start wearing a burqa. Should be a huge turn-on for her, if I’m reading you correctly.
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 11, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
If the brain is our primary sex organ, I suppose that most Americans have been effectively neutered by the insipid portrayal of human sexuality on display in the USA’s newsstands and teevee shows …
I love the way you put that.
So, my hubby’s friends keep talking about Larry the Cable Guy and how funny he is. We rented one of his live shows tonight and one of his jokes reminded me of this post. He talks about how he overheard a woman complaining about how big her boobs were and that she would like a reduction. He immediately started talking about how you never hear men complain about wanting a penis reduction. I guess in my sheltered life previous to feminism, I was never taught that the breasts are comparable to the penis. If that’s the case, I’ve got a long way to go on my “crusade” :-). I guess I never considered the two to be corresponding parts. Any thoughts?
Comment by Lessie — August 11, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
Q: How do you make five pounds of fat attractive?
A: Put a nipple on it.
Sure, it’s hilarious (okay, maybe it’s just me), but it also speaks volumes about our culture, doesn’t it?
Comment by Princess Wossrname — August 13, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
re 98:
“…yeah im sure tribes people all have extremely unfulfilling sex lives just because womens breasts aren’t instant-boner-inducing pockets of fat. (insert sarcasm)”
Are you advocating that we adopt the sexual practices of those tribes people for ourselves? Just what are the sexual practices of those tribes people? Are you advocating that American women should be treated in the same manner as the women in those tribes? They are the example that you hold up, are they not?
“Oh yeah, btw…don’t ever equate breastfeeding with piss thats really disrespectful and insulting.”
How did I equate breastfeeding with piss? I said, “the penis was a urine dispensing device long before it was a sex object”. I then posed the following questions, “Can we be so sure that the breast was a bottle before it was a sex object? Did Adam lay his hands on the breast of Eve before she had a child?”
The premise of my post is that the penis and breast do not equate. That one was clearly a functioning, and necessary piece of anantomy prior to it being a sex object, while the other was possibly not. How is pointing out a possible difference equating the two?
Comment by I Like Boobs — August 14, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
Wait — this post isn’t about Melanie?
Comment by Kaimi — August 14, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
“I Like Boobs” … oops, your erudition is showing, why not just come out from behind your nom de plume and let us have it with both barrels …
Comment by Chino Blanco — August 15, 2007 @ 7:17 am
I’m well aware that the penis and breast do not equate. That’s why I think we’re way over doing it with the taboo. No, I’m not saying we treat women in the U.S. like the women in primitive tribes. All that example is showing is that bare breasts do not mean a society of stiffies.
Kaimi, is that at the SLC snacker or the Sunstone one? Thanks for the lighter post. It was getting deep in here.
Comment by Lessie — August 15, 2007 @ 8:22 am
yikes!!!!!
Comment by mfranti — August 15, 2007 @ 8:57 am
kiami,
you are incorrigible!
Comment by mfranti — August 15, 2007 @ 8:58 am
i’m thinking it took less than ten minutes!!!
Comment by mfranti — August 15, 2007 @ 9:05 am
Well said mfranti, well said!
Comment by Lessie — August 15, 2007 @ 9:08 am
You realize, there are almost 20 comments from Lessie on this one. Which means the sidebar is pretty much constantly reading:
“Lessie: the naughty nipple”
Now pronounce that out loud.
Comment by Kaimi — August 15, 2007 @ 9:51 am
I find all this talk of exposing boobs and other body parts sort of amusing since we’re not even supposed to expose our shoulders or knees. Dressed from neck to knee most of the time, even around our spouse in the privacy of our own homes. Frankly, I started finding that idea offensive–that husband and wife must cover up, except during certain “activities”–when my 30 year old son was married two years ago. I just don’t see HF sending that message.
Yes, Im a TR carrying member; 33 years and counting.
This may be a thredjack.
Comment by BR — August 15, 2007 @ 9:53 am
I must admit that I have never heard that husbands and wives should be fully dressed at all times when alone at home, unless Something is Happening. Since when is that the case and who said so? Never heard of it before.
Comment by dangermom — August 15, 2007 @ 11:49 am
dangermom
Perhaps I’m too old for this blog…
The temple instructions prior to one’s own endowment used to be as follows: “next to the skin, day and night, everyday of your life.” In my day–34 years ago–that meant under the bra. Today, we are given the option although the designs are not friendly to that.
In my life there have been several First Presidency letters read in SM regading garment wear. While they’re never specific regarding what to do with the garment during sexual intercourse, the admonition to “restore it as soon as possible” doesn’t give much leeway. In another thread on this blog (can’t remember which, sorry), there was a question asked by a young married woman regarding when, during foreplay, garments can be removed. That is sad.
The following is an exerpt from an August 1997 Ensign article by Carlos Asay former Salt Lake Temple pres.
…in a letter to priesthood leaders dated 10 October 1988, the First Presidency made the following important statements regarding how the garment should be worn: “Church members who have been clothed with the garment in the temple have made a covenant to wear it throughout their lives. This has been interpreted to mean that it is worn as underclothing both day and night. This sacred covenant is between the member and the Lord. Members should seek the guidance of the Holy Spirit to answer for themselves any personal questions about the wearing of the garment. … The promise of protection and blessings is conditioned upon worthiness and faithfulness in keeping the covenant.
“The fundamental principle ought to be to wear the garment and not to find occasions to remove it. Thus, members should not remove either all or part of the garment to work in the yard or to lounge around the home in swimwear or immodest clothing. Nor should they remove it to participate in recreational activities that can reasonably be done with the garment worn properly beneath regular clothing. When the garment must be removed, such as for swimming, it should be restored as soon as possible.”
I’m happy for you if you missed that message. Some couples–very few I hope– still believe garments should stay on for intercourse–I heard that from several people before i was married. It was technically–although not practically– feasible with the one piece. I was fortunate enough to be told otherwise, but only last week my DIL told me of a friend of hers–in her 20’s–who practices it.
It is fortunate that many young church couples are much more comfortable with their bodies–because of involvement in sports and such–than in the past and don’t see their bodies as “evil” but it’s still out there.
Anyway….this is definitely a threadjack and i apologize.
Comment by BR — August 15, 2007 @ 1:19 pm
I’ve been very silent on this post because I haven’t known how to respond to I Like Boobs. I think he may be a troll . . . but I’m not sure . . . but I was deeply disturbed by the statement, “Be careful what you wish for. It’s odd that a website wishing to empower women would encourage them to relinquish the greatest power they have over men.” I’m often accused of being a man-hater, but this is such a horrible thing to say about men: that they are completely controlled by sex. And it’s a horrible thing to say about women: that our greatest strength is in our sexuality. It’s just a horrible, disturbing, hateful statement all-around.
BR, the notion that we should be ashamed of our bodies in front of our own spouses is – wow. It’s not like I’m in the habit of walking around naked but I certainly don’t feel like there’s anything wrong with my husband walking in on me when I’m in the shower. My body is far from perfect, but for me, seeing each other naked, in a non-sexual setting, adds to the intimacy of marriage.
Comment by Quimby — August 15, 2007 @ 5:12 pm
re 116:
Quimby,
You must have a pretty strong argument to resort to the almighty troll allegation right off the bat. Let’s take a look.
You were deeply disturbed by my comment in which I said, “It’s odd that a website wishing to empower women would encourage them to relinquish the greatest power they have over men”.
Granted, I should have inserted “one of” between “relinquish” and “the”, and made “power” plural, but I didn’t. That was my mistake, and for that, I’m sorry. Perhaps that’s why some of my closer friends on this list refer to me as Jethro.
For the sake of discussion, I’m willing to defend my original comment.
Let’s look at what you said in reference to my disturbing comment. You stated, “…it’s a horrible thing to say about women: that our greatest strength is in our sexuality”.
Did I say that was your greatest strength? Even in my flawed comment, I believe I was just commenting on women’s powers over men. Not the total summation of all the strengths and powers of women, which may be greater than men, but the greatest power in which women can dominate men. Women have a way of making men weak, which I believe is good. Take away the wonder upon which men look at women, and you may very well find that men will start treating women like men. Would that be to a woman’s advantage? Perhaps in some instances, but overall I don’t believe that it would.
Women have many great strengths. For instance, women are very good at twisting a man’s words (see above). You are also very good at using a man’s attraction towards women as leverage. You, apparently, view this as a weakness and want to give this power up. Who does that really benefit?
You might also want to go back and read the comments of BR again, as you completely missed her point. I certainly wouldn’t want anyone to accuse you of being a troll.
My wife is now using some of that God-given leverage to get me off the computer. Later!
Comment by I Like Boobs — August 15, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
Actually, you didn’t - you said “the greatest power” - but either way it’s pretty damned disgusting. And you try to weasel out of it by saying I twisted your words?
There is really no point arguing with you because, as you’ve repeatedly demonstrated on this post, you’re very quick to back away from comments, get snarky, and accuse us all of misreading you. But go back and read all of your posts, and you come across as a pretty shallow guy. The beauty of a person (male or female) is what’s between the ears. The rest is just salad dressing - kinda tasty, but lacking in substance.
Comment by Quimby — August 15, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
For instance, women are very good at twisting a man’s words (see above).
Oh my hell (or heck–whichever)–that is a universal human ability. My hubby and I do that to each other all the time when we argue. As for the rest of your argument, Mary Wollstonecraft addressed the relationship that should exist between the sexes a long time ago. And because men were the dominant players in society for so long, of course women want to be treated like men. However, due to the varying degrees of gender tendencies, I think most women would be happy to simply be treated like human beings.
Comment by Lessie — August 15, 2007 @ 10:00 pm
Lessie, number one, jinx, and number two, you’re wasting your breath with feminist theory.
Comment by Quimby — August 15, 2007 @ 10:01 pm
Sorry Quimby, cross posted, wasn’t trying to speak for you.
Comment by Lessie — August 15, 2007 @ 10:02 pm
Oh, Lessie, don’t apologise, and I appreciate what you’re saying; but I don’t think Boob Man will. I didn’t mean it as an attack on you; I don’t think Boob Man has it in him to grasp feminist theory, that’s all I meant. I’m sorry; it came out wrong.
Comment by Quimby — August 15, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
It’s always sad when contentiousness rears it’s ugly head. I’ve found that when the discussion degrades to anger, insults, and swearing (even Mormon swearing), that there is no real need to continue.
I also hope that the women who want to expose their breast to the world will have no man find them sexually appealing. May you never run across a man who likes boobs again.
Sincerely,
I Like Boobs
Comment by I Like Boobs — August 16, 2007 @ 8:23 am
Who was being contentious? Who was being insulting? Sheesh! Men must have a weakness for twisting words and being easily offended. (I won’t bother with your obligatory passive-agressive superficial phoney happy face.)
Comment by Quimby — August 16, 2007 @ 2:47 pm
[…] FMH: The Naughty Nipple […]
Pingback by More bloggernacle posts about sexuality « The Visitors’ Center — April 28, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
[…] FMH: The Naughty Nipple […]
Pingback by More bloggernacle posts about sexuality « The Visitors’ Center — April 28, 2008 @ 5:07 pm