I know there are tribal cultures where women go around topless, I’m curious how universal the covering and sexualization of female breasts are among humanity.
Aside from special circumstances like nude beaches, it seems the norm in industrial cultures and societies for female breasts to be covered at all times in public and treated as a sexual body area.
How universal is stimulation of breasts during sex? Like oral breast contact, sucking etc. Is there any culture where breasts are totally nonsexual, or breast stimulation during sex nonexistant?
Large breasts are a secondary sex characteristic in humans, and a rather prominent one at that. And the nipples have a very large number of nerve endings. Both of these facts are biological, and universal across all cultures, so I’d expect that sexualization of breasts is universal, too. In fact, they’re probably so large precisely because they’re sexualized, like the peacock’s tail: Even A-cups can produce plenty of milk for an infant.
Going topless was not unheard of where I lived in Northern Cameroon. You probably wouldn’t go to the market topless, but you’d probably be fine receiving visitors, running errands in your neighborhood, or working in the fields. It was hot, people nurse a lot of babies, and the whole “wearing clothes” thing was considered to be a pretty newfangled affection anyway-- the days of leaf loincloths was in living memory, and they were still used by some people in very rural areas.
It used to crack me up when my neighbor, a devout Muslim, would visit with her headscarf on but with no shirt.
That said, I got the impression that the breasts of young, marriageable women were still sexualized. But it was more like bellies here- on a hot young thing showing off, it can be sexual, but people weren’t necessarily fixated on them, and you could definitely show them in a non-sexual way, especially as an older woman.
The relief carvings on old Egyptian temples show women in fancy dress, which includes flowing skits, belt decorations, headdresses, and the dress cinched up under the breasts. but unlike the ancient Greeks who seemed to find beauty in the human body, for example, the Egyptians did not seem to be fixated on the female form or sex very much - of course, most of the art, or surviving art, has to do with the afterlife and depicting the late lamented in his livelihood and home life. There’s a tomb in Saqqara about 4500 years old, that shows men fishing from a boat, with very realistic depictions of the variety of fish - and the men are incidentally nude. But, there is a singular lack of suggestive or entwined figures. However, when showing breasts in reliefs, the nipples also are often quite prominent - perhaps to say “this is definitely a woman”.
You can also find the depiction of the one-armed, one-legged god with a prominent erection as part of the Egyptian pantheon, but the guy is just standing there and often prurient early Christians and later Muslims have chipped away at his prominence. (also, so many of the representations of people/gods on Egyptian carvings, particularly face and hands, have been chipped away as “idols” by early Christians.)
So, titillation, so to speak, is in the eye of the beholder.
Pre-Western Japan seems to have had a relative lack of interest in breasts. Erotic literature mentions them mainly in passing, and women in erotic art are usually shown with the tops of their kimonos in place. There didn’t seem to be any particular taboo about showing them; women could bathe naked in mixed company or swim in only loincloths. But they don’t seem to have been the focus of the kind of fetishization and intense interest that they received in contemporaneous Western cultures (or modern Japan). Japanese erotic materials don’t start to focus on the breast until they started to cater to a Western audience in the late 1800’s.
Chinese foot binding
Lip plates and the large lips they create Neck rings
Hips in Renaissance Art (see “The Naked Maja,” for instance – the breasts are hard to notice, but the hips are the center of focus). Large breasts were considered gross and the sign of a peasant.
Legs in the 30s US. Watch a Busby Berkeley movie – the camera lovingly pans along the dancers’ legs, and their breasts are deemphasized. The woman are not large breasted at all.
Flappers of the 20s – flat chested was the ideal.
Today: In the UK, woman’s cleavage is what people think is sexy; in the US, it’s the nipple.
Even within my lifetime, the style in breasts has changed from big to small to big again.
Breasts are probably the most common fetishized part of the female body, but they are not the only one, and it’s hard to come up with a evolutionary reason that passes muster.
What are those exceptions to? I said that sexualization of breasts was probably universal. I didn’t say that all sexualizations are universal, nor that breasts are the only thing that’s sexualized.
Re: Busby Berkley - my dad (born in 1930) was always a “leg man.” Seems to be a real generational thing. There was an earlier time was men appreciated a “well-turned ankle.”
I’ve seen mentions that in repressed Victorian times, legs were so sexualized – and thus, so repressed – that even table legs and grand piano legs were assiduously kept covered by low-hanging table cloths.
So, how does anything become sexualized? I’ll admit I’m a “leg man” myself, but it would be impossible prior to the 20th century when there were no shorts, skirts were full-length and women didn’t shave.