Breasts considered sexual?

[NAC1999]

This has been bothering me for a while, and I have finally decided to start a little discussion here about it.

Are breasts considered sexual? To me, their not. I mean, if they are, then we should censor cows or pigs. Is it just that people are sensitive to this kind of stuff? What do you think? I can't really talk about this with anyone else...(everyone kinda just gets freaked out when I bring it up.) It's not like we don't know what they look like...and they're in plain sight, right on our chests.

Thanks for your input and I look forward to reading replies!

[Heather]

The thing is, whatever body part you ask this about, including breasts, you're going to get a range of answers, even from only one person.

How we experience what is and is not sexual is both highly individual, as well as situational. For you, and some other folks, you make clear breasts don't feel or strike you as sexual: some others feel differently. And probably most people will feel that, like any other body part, they can be sometimes or in some situations or circumstances, but not other times or in other situations or circumstances.

It's also safe to say few people will have a body part they always experience as sexual, in every situation, or experience as only sexual, especially in a lifetime.

Suffice it to say, this is why anyone, including legal policies, deciding which parts are or are not universally sexual for everyone is awfully problematic.

Make sense?

[Kela]

That is a very good question!!

Personally, for me, I feel that they are; I mean, in western culture, in the media and fashion and whatever they are often made a feature of outfits (e.g. low cut dresses and tops, or bikinis, and underwear) and you see them pretty much everywhere these days on adverts and what have you!! So, because of the messages I have had all throughout my life so far from the media and everything, to me, they are a feature or a part of your body you can display to attract people to you sexually. Also, for me, they are a part of my body which gets turned on during sex.

To be honest, I often forget that they are no different to cows udders and their main purpose is to provide milk for infants!! I remember watching some trashy TV programme once, and a girl on there said the was no way she'd use her breasts for feeding her child; they were purely for sex. I have to disagree on that part, I fully understand that the main purpose is to feed babies, I just feel that at all other times, they are intrinsically sexual.

[NAC1999]

Yes! It is a very complicated topic for sure. The only reason I have any sort of mindset on this is because of exactly what you brought up, Kela. We feed our babies with them, or at least should. Breasts wouldn't be on our bodies if they weren't serving that purpose. For example, in older cultures, women would feed their infants right out in the open because it was natural and everyone knew that. Also, because they are used in sex doesn't particularly mean they are sexual in my view. I mean, we use our hands in sex, are they considered sexual? Haha, just a thought.

Heather: Yes that definitely makes sense. Many people have many different opinions on this. Today, it does seem like a very person-orientated topic. Laws do say that they are sexual, but maybe they're wrong...?

If you want to hear my opinion, I think society has gotten a little too strict and self-conscious. The majority of the public does not breastfeed, and it may contribute to the fact that breasts are considered differently today.

[Heather]

I would just make an ask about assigning body parts as useless if they do not work a cetain way, or are not used a certain way, based on anyone's idea of what they are for. Especially if we are going to talk reproduction. Not everyone with breasts chooses to make babies, nor can everyone with breasts do so. Not everyone who does and wants to nurse finds that works out for them or a given infant. Yet, there they still are, on people's bodies.

And yes, I would say that if someone finds their hands are part of sex or sexuality, then for whatever those times are, they are parts being sexual. Again, this is the trouble with labeling parts of the body universally sexual or not. It doesn't leave room for the diversity of sexuality, nor for sexuality or sex being something that is not the same all the time, or is always happening.

[Kela]

Heather, you make an interesting point that not everyone with breasts chooses to breastfeed or even have children!! So I suppose in a way that does sort of, to some people, give them more than one purpose, for example being sexual things rather than just for procreational purposes.

I definitely think people's ideas about nudity and stuff has changed over recent years, and some people are reluctant to breastfeed in public because of certain people's reactions, I know that here in the UK sadly there are many stories of women breastfeeding in restaurants and what have you and people have made nasty comments saying things like 'that's disgusting' or 'put it away'. but again, I think its all partly to do with the messages sent out by western media, things like fashion and lingerie ads which do sexualise breasts. So I suppose that in a way, people who complain are more often than not people who have been driven by those messages to believe that breasts should ONLY be sexual objects.

NAC, What's your opinion on western media and their attitude to breasts and sexuality?

[NAC1999]

Both of your points are valid for sure. Oh, and about people getting disgusted about breastfeeding, they just need to relax a little in my opinion. A woman breastfeeding her baby is a very bonding experience, and if you look at statistics, can lead to the child's success. Haha, I'm drifting off into another topic here.

In my personal opinion, the media has created breasts into a new female genital. In fact, I think that over time men have grown to think of them that way only because of the images we create. In nature, the male gender is not 'turned on' by the female's utters or milk-producing organs. I'm not trying to say that we are merely animals, but we do have to try and take that under consideration. We are animals in every way, but very intelligent and sophisticated animals for sure.

[Keda]

I think it's a misnomer to describe any body part as inherently sexual or non-sexual. Sex and sexuality are things that come out of people's interactions (sometimes one-sided interactions, e.g. one person looking at and thinking about another), so the only way to determine whether a body part is sexual or not is to look at the interaction it is part of right now this minute. That provides for hands being sexual during sex but non-sexual during everyday life; breasts being sexual in advertising but not when being used to breastfeed or as a pillow; and even for primary sex organs - penises and vaginas and the like - being sexual in porn but not during a doctor's exam or when helping someone wash.

I guess that interpretation could also go some way to explaining the massive disconnect between people who think street harassment is okay and people who don't; paying a stranger an actual compliment (e.g. "You look lovely!") includes all the potentially sexual parts of their body (breasts, legs, bum etc.) but in a non-sexual interaction; street harassment ("Nice tits!") includes the potentially sexual body parts in a sexual interaction that the person hasn't consented to. But if you're not someone who recognises that the nature of the interaction is the decisive factor, then you won't see the difference between the two examples.

[TheConfusedOne]

I once watched a 4 part documentary type show on looking inside a woman while having sex. It brings up what men find attractive about women and why. And it's given me some food for thought.

According to the video, the stereotype of big breasts and big hips are what men look for in women is due to reproduction. Just like how theres an idea going around that women will always want to settle down and have babies because maternal instinct, men look for big breasts and big hips with the thought of fertility. Basically, it meant stronger babies and leads to stronger families/heirs. It even explains why, that big hips are perceived to allow for easier birth (apparently, most people agree on this) with bigger babies and big breasts produce more milk for the child (a lot still think this is true! My grandmother never breast fed her children because she thought with a small set of breasts, she won't produce enough milk. It was when my mother got me and breastfed me, that my grandmother found out how silly that notion is.)

This fertility attraction might have been confused as lust (which, when you think about it with an animal's point of view, it IS lust...), and that's why modern culture now thinks breasts and hips are sexual. I suppose it doesn't help that it DOES in fact feel good to be stimulated in those areas! Marketing is just taking advantage of this attraction, further encouraging the lust effect by producing silly products like push up bras to "make you look fuller" or making it seem like "you can fix your lopsided boobs with this fancy looking sponge and wire combination!".

To me, breasts are... well, breasts. They have a main function that I was born with, to feed babies. They jiggle around because they're soft. It feels good to have them stimulated. The bigger they are, the more annoying. And that's about it. I'm quite neutral about my body parts because I've come to accept it as being me. Honestly, imo, the entire body can be sexual! I mean, I haven't heard of anyone saying "My brain is sexual", eventhough all the sexual signals come from there!

(Sorry for the thread necromancy, but I had thoughts to share )