Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:17:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
414 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
| |
Subjective. How exactly do you link breasts and decency?
|
In our society, breasts are considered sexual parts (because they are). We
tend to be more modest about displaying our sexual parts.
|
Well, they’re sexual parts because we’ve fetishized them to be sexual parts,
|
Hmmm. I’m thinking of clay Ashtarte fetishes that are 1,000s of years old which
are basically a human form with gigantic breasts. Breasts have always been a
symbol for sexuality and fertility that is cross-cultural, which leads me to
conclude the preoccupation with them is more instinctual. I should go back and
reread The Naked Ape.
| |
| |
No. Ask any women who got hers “augmented”.
|
That’s a reasonable observation, actually, but a little imprecise. There’s
no reason that they can’t be both utilitarian glands *and* sexual symbols,
but it should be recalled that the primary function (i.e., of principal
importance) of breasts is to provide nourishment for mammalian young, rather
than to inspire titilation (which is, again, a result of cultural fetishism).
|
Even if I concede that breast preoccupation is a result of cultural fetishism,
it is the decision of the culture to consider them that way and therefore they
are that way. Any behavior to the contrary is not normative for that culture.
Perhaps it is different in other cultures, but how is that relevant?
| |
The notion that pre-pubescent children are asexual is a myth.
|
I would like to see some studies on the subject. I agree that children are
curious and partially aware of their sexuality, but I would contend that sexual
desires develop in puberty and if they develop sooner, it is a direct result of
socialization.
| |
| |
Publically funded television-- what a waste of money....
|
Much better to dump vastly more taxpayer money straight into Halliburton’s
finances, I suppose?
|
Come on-- you are above that nonsense, Dave!
JOHN
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) That piece by Morris has been widely questioned as relying too heavily post-hoc reasoning based on pre-determined gender roles, but I still enjoy a lot of his work. I don't doubt that breasts have been long-time symbols of fertility and (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote: <snip> (...) Insofar as at one time the female ankle was considered sexual 'cause that was the part that was 'always covered up'. Making laws based on this type of sexual arousing 'finnikyness' seems very (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) Well, they're sexual parts because we've fetishized them to be sexual parts, much like tiny (bound) feet used to be in China. Beyond that, breasts are no more "sexual parts" than the rest of our bodies (and less so than certain other body (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
