Subject:
|
Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:45:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
416 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
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.
|
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
motherhood, but the so-called “Venus cults” of prehistory are largely products
of speculation and presumption. It seems more likely that a figure with 100
breasts is a symbol of nurturing motherhood than of scintillating, hubba-hubba
sexuality.
Now that I think of it, I don’t even question that breast fixation is
instinctive; a baby knows to suckle without ever having seen Playboy. My view,
though, is that the hypersexualization of breasts is overwhelmingly cultural in
nature, rather than inherent.
| |
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?
|
Well, I think it’s important to distinguish between inherent properties and
culturally-imposed properties, but you’re right about cultural decisions. Laws
(and rights, frankly) are entirely cultural constructs, so there’s nothing
inconsistent about saying “Culture A believes X, so Culture X makes a law about
X.” Of course, the problem is that not everyone in Culture USA believes the
same things (about breasts or otherwise).
| |
| |
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.
|
I’m not so sure. I know a transvestite who was aware of his transvestism (and
the resultant societal/sexual awkwardness) from the age of four, so he’s one
vote for prepubescent awareness of sexual identity. I myself was aware before
the age of five that my feelings about Nicole were fundamentally different from
my feelings about Brian, so I’m another vote.
It’s also difficult to say that sexual desire develops in puberty, because
masturbation doesn’t wait for puberty.
| |
| |
| |
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!
|
8^)
I take offense at your assertion that I’m above nonsense. What kind of elitist
do you think I am?!?
Anyway, I think the great strength of public television (and radio, more
specifically) is that it is to some extent insulated against the forces of the
market, which have otherwise produced such fine bastions of objective journalism
as FOX, CNN, and MSNBC. That’s not to say that public media are perfect or
wholly impartial, but they are less driven to serve the corporate bottom line
than corporate-owned media.
Still, some people don’t like their tax dollars funding it, but there are plenty
of programs I don’t want my tax dollars to fund, too. Halliburton is just one
of them.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Skin (was: Re: Once again, etc.)
|
| (...) 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 (...) (21 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
|
|
|
|
