CRS
Chandler, Arizona, United States

There's an old saying. If you don't want someone to join a crowd, you ask them, "If everyone were jumping off of a cliff, would you?" Well, I have. So my answer would be "Yes". True story.
Profile continued . . .

ARCHIVES!
The Nature of Breasts Being Sexualized

Wednesday, January 24, 2007

this entry brought to you by peter bjorn and john, "young folks"


A friend of mine came across a website once upon a time and sent me a link to it. It is a very feminist website that focuses specifically on criticizing the taboo of women baring their breasts in public to breast feed their babies, and it then goes on to question the obsession men have of breasts as sexual objects in general.

On the first part, I obviously agree that the weird taboo we have with women breastfeeding in public needs to go. On a personal level, I get uncomfortable around women who choose to not wait for privacy to breastfeed their infants. I don't see why some women don't have the slightest problem with popping that sucker out and latching a baby on at inopportune times, and the argument might be "Why should she? You're the one with the problem, not her," but I feel like that's a useless argument. There are lots of things people can do that aren't acceptable to do in public, and just because you don't have a problem with doing something in public doesn't mean you ought to. There honestly isn't anything wrong with my picking my nose out in the open, but it's a private thing that I do on my own-- and that doesn't even involve nudity. Obviously you could say that picking your nose is an insulting thing to compare to the beautiful nurturing of a breastfeeding woman, but that even further cements my argument-- doing something personal and loving in a public fashion diminishes it of its beauty.

Having said that, I also understand that I'm a grown damn adult and I don't need to flip out every single time I see a woman doing what nature intended by feeding her child. It makes me uncomfortable, but it's not that difficult to avert my eyes. The way some people are so against it is disturbing, because people that tend to argue vehemently against it tend to use words like "sick" and "wrong"-- what's so sick and wrong about it?

But the website then goes on to state the reason we, as a culture, have a problem with breastfeeding in public is that we have sexualized breasts, and since we see them as sexual objects, we find them being exposed in public to be shameful, and the site then continues on a long rant about the evils of the obsession America has with the breast, and this is a point I completely disagree with them on.

To quote:

So what is it about the breasts that makes North Americans so obsessed with them as sexual objects? In the course of history many different parts of the female body have been fetishes for men, for example ankles, necks, and tiny feet (in China), so why breast obsession in our age?

This is correct; many different areas of the female body have been fetishized at different times. But to imply that breasts were never a focal point until recently is silly. There has never been a single point in Western fashion where a woman's breasts weren't emphasized. Proper British women hundreds of years ago would hold their breath while being shoved in ridiculous girdles in order to make their waists look thinner and, therefore, their breasts larger and more upfront. There was never a point where women purposefully attempted to make their breasts smaller-- at least, not that I'm aware of. Those cleavage-bearing dresses seen at Renaissance festivals aren't just being worn because we dig breasts here in the 21st century-- breasts have always been adored.

Furthermore, just because we fetishize breasts more than other cultures doesn't make it abnormal in some way. There's a culture out there that fetishizes schoolgirls being raped by tentacled monsters. That's sure as hell not normal, either. I do firmly believe that there isn't a single culture out there that doesn't also have a breast fetish-- look at artwork of women throughout the ages, throughout cultures, particularly artwork depicting sex. The only cultures that don't sexualize breasts are the most primitive ones that view sex merely as a way of continuing the population so that their society doesn't die out. Every civilized culture that has sex for pleasure rather than for utilitarian purposes has sexualized breasts. Perhaps we obsess over them more than other cultures, but I think there are many, many other much more harmful fetishes that we could have.

The site then quotes a woman named Katherine Dettwyler:

In the fall of 1993, one of the undergraduate students in my 'Women and Culture' course was totally flabbergasted to discover that the biological function of women's breasts was for feeding children. With obvious shock and disgust evident in her voice she asked, 'You mean women's breasts are like a cow's udder?' That a young woman could reach college without ever having even heard of women using their breasts to feed their children is a sad commentary on American culture.
--Katherine Dettwyler as quoted in The Breastfeeding Action Committee of Edmonton (BACE) report about Breastfeeding at Municipal Pools in Canada.

First of all, I don't believe this ever happened. Secondly, if it did happen, I guarantee that poor girl was home schooled. And I'm not just saying that to take the opportunity to bash home schooling or to be funny... I really mean that. There is absolutely no way, with today's thorough sex education throughout the entire course of public schooling, that a girl could reach college age without knowing that breasts were created as reproductive organs. There is no way, unless her teachers intentionally withheld that information, and the only way this is possible is by being taught outside the mainstream system. This is fact a sad commentary on American culture, but it's a sad commentary on the growing pool of home schooled children that haven't been educated properly more than ignorance on breast feeding.

If we can see breasts as the wonderful means God created to feed and comfort babies, then the obsessions men have about them can disappear; and importantly, women don't have to obsessively worry about the size and shape of their breasts.

To imply that if men suddenly stopped desiring to look at boobs that women would become enlightened and no longer have any sort of image consciousness is silly. I don't like how obsessed women are with their image in this day and age is either, but unfortunately, it is nothing new. The site mentioned that tiny feet were fetishized in China for centuries-- do I need to go into depth about the horrid abuse women put on their feet by binding them just so men would approve? Do I need to mention how horrid the pain was that women had to go through to have the appearance of thin waists? If men no longer found breasts sexually interesting, there would just be some other form of abuse women would put themselves through. It's sad but true.

The last thing I wanted to quote from this site was this:

But why does the American society view breasts primarily as sexual objects and not as baby feeders? Carolyn Latteier voiced it out this way in Berman & Berman's TV program "All about breasts":

"Well, I think it is partly to do with the fact that we don't breastfeed very much. I mean, breastfeeding rates have improved, but most women don't breastfeed very much or very long or in public. So when we see a breast, we don't say, "Oh there are those magical milk-making things."

 I find this point of view to be curious. When we see a pair of breasts, it's true, we don't say "Those are magical milk-making things." But I don't see how if we did this would somehow improve society at all. When a man sees a long, shapely pair of legs, he does not say "Oh, hey, those are those magical transportation sticks that take a person from point a to point b!" But if he thought that, women wouldn't have to wear uncomfortable high heels! And when a man sees a vagina, he doesn't think, "Oh, it's that magical liquid-waste expelling thing that also ejects infant humans!" But if he thought that, women wouldn't have to groom themselves down there or take precautions during their menstrual cycle! And when a man sees a pair of buttocks, he doesn't think, "Oh, it's that magical shit-expelling spine cushioner!" But if he thought that, women wouldn't find themselves forced to wear idiotic undergarments or stupid fashion trends!

It's not that I can't understand a woman's frustration at the strange taboo we have about breastfeeding our babies, and certainly there are societies, perhaps even more enlightened than our own, where this kind of thing can be done more freely. Honestly and truly, I do understand. If God didn't want a woman to feed her children milk, then the only difference between a man and a woman fully clothed would be the size of her hips, and nobody wants that. But to deny that breasts are meant as reproductive organs as well as sexual organs seems willfully ignorant. Why the heck can't it be both? All sexual organs, both male and female, have multiple functions, and to focus only on the industrial purposes of any part of the body denies God of the truly wonderful creation that he made-- human beings. They are wonderful because of how efficient they are, for the infinite things our relatively small amount of organs and appendages, when used in coordination, can do. Hey look! My fingers can be used to carve simple tools, draw symbols that represent communication, and sexually stimulate myself as well as my partner! Would you look at that!

To put it another way, if breasts weren't meant to be sexualized, then there wouldn't be a whole lump of nerves at a nipple's end that arouse a woman when touched. Yes, this is also so a mother enjoys the sensation of nursing her child and, therefore, ensuring they survive, but if it were purely utilitarian, then why, when stimulated a little more, does a woman react in a sexual way? Why are they so sensitive, rather than oh, just somewhat sensitive? Breasts enjoy being touched. And men enjoy touching them because they are lovely to touch. And men anticipate looking at them because they also anticipate feeling them. This really isn't rocket science.
-----



on this day last year i really, really enjoyed writing this scathin entry about smokers, and i enjoy reading it-- i thought it was hilarious. however, be warned: smokers won't think this entry is funny at all.
-----

with love from CRS @ 4:51 AM 

0 Comments:

Post a Comment