I’ll need cites on that claim. Egyptian heiroglyphs showed women topless and sometimes naked except for a string around their waists (slaves, I think.) Guys ran around similarly undressed. They had cities.
Here’s an actual Egyptian statue, she looks pretty durned nude to me. Of course, because their statues are nude doesn’t prove they ran around nude, but everything I’ve read suggested lower-class folks didn’t wear a hell of a lot.
The Greeks were big fans of the naked human form, though they were a little more naked guy-oriented than other cultures. I remember reading that contestants in the original Olympic games participated in the nude. They had cities.
Romans not only had semi-pornographic, or outright pornographic frescoes on a lot of their walls, they also loved their phalli. Busts of big-deal Romans typically include a large phallus carved into the base of the phallus to show that the guy was a biggie in every respect. They also kept phalli by the doors of their homes to rub for “good luck.”
Yeah, I’m gonna have to have all sort of evidence for the notion that civilization and “people of the Book” style sexual repression go hand in hand.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed lately, Dutchman, but bovines aren’t primates. And non-dairy cattle typically have much smaller udders than their milky sisters. And that cattle respond more strongly to non-visual markers (fr’ex, the scent in urine) than humans do. And a heifer doesn’t develop a bag until after she’s been bred, which is after she’s reached sexual maturity. The size of a Holstein’s bag is more an effect of years of domestication and selective breeding than anything that’s a sexual draw for the male of the species.
In other words, udders aren’t eroticized by cattle. When mating, they sometimes don’t even go so far as to look each other in the eyes. It’s mostly a lot of butt sniffing and bawling at each other. There really aren’t enough parallels between mating among domesticated cattle and human/primate courtship to draw any conclusions about the eroticization of breast/udder size, I’d say.
Now, I am not sure how uncovered ‘uncovered’ means, but I long ago saw a variation of this, in which she (Elizabeth I) was covered in white paint, and her tits were totally uncovered. A rather unsavoury prospect.
shakes head
Yes, they are sexual…but you know what? It’s probaly a Fredian thing . It’s hard to say exactly WHY they are shaped the way they are. Scientists still don’t know why ears are shaped the way they are.
shakes head Despite their continued reference in popular culture (“Bob sure is anal about those TPS cover sheets, isn’t he?”) Freud’s collective theories of psychosexual development are practically universially discredited as being hopelessly wrong (particularly his theory that all neuroses have their origins in childhood sexual abuse, but that’s a whole 'nother issue). It’s almost certain that the evolutionary development of the oversize human breast is the result of selection for erogenous appeal, i.e. a woman with well-developed breasts is healthy and well-fed, a good prospect for motherhood.
The development of udders and other exaggerated or paedomorphic features is the result of artificial selection by human breeders. It has nothing to do with selection of ergonous characteristics.
Playboy made them oversexualized? I think you’re giving too much credit to Hugh Hefner. Large breasts have been sexualized throughout human history. Take a look at Indian sculpture – not an itty-bitty in sight.
Right on all counts, although the Greek situation is a little odd. Although they revered the human male form, they held up small penises as the ideal. :eek: They felt that a small penis was a sign of man’s superiority to other animals (a large penis signified an uncivilized person). This explains (and you always wondered about this…admit it!) why ancient Greek statues always have great bodies bodies but small penises. You saw some ancient Greek artwork where a man is depicted as having a huge penis? That was likely propaganda of some sort, meant to demean some person or culture (the military was a big fan of this).
Malienation, although heroic statues and portratits in Greek and Roman art did, indeed, have small penes, large penes weren’t only for making fun of other races (although it was used for that, as well). Greek herms and Greek and Roman statues of Priapus had abnormally large penes. Frequently Hermes or Mercury would, as well. The large penis was associated , arguably, with feertility, although I think a better case can be made for threat and aggression. But I’ve long suspected that there’s an element of fantasy in there as well – these figures, which weren’t comic, allowed the Greaco-romans to have their proper ideal (statues wioth small penese) and improper yet appealing fantasies as well. Kinda like having a soberly dimensioned Miss America and a large-breasted Playboy Playmate in the same culture.
Some of the bikini tops I have seen are really just nipple covers-they are just small patches of cloth. I find it amusing that you can expose virtually the entire breast, but only the nipple is considered obscene.
But not as sexualized as they are now. My mom’s a lactation counsultant,and she says that the number one objection to breastfeeding, is that the breasts are purely sexual. Yes, they may have been seen as sexual in other times, but they were ALSO utlitarian!
I dunno…I think there could be something there with deep rooted childhood nerosises…the breasts are the source of food/comfort etc.
Sort of like why cats “knead” when they are happy. Cats knead b/c that’s how they got milk from the mom as kittens. Anyone following my thinking here?
Horsefeathers, as has been stated before, the nipples are utilitarian, but as you can see by looking at primates, there’s no utilitarian purpose to swollen breasts. They’re purely sexual organs.
Well, yeah, they had statues with big penises, but as you mention those statues were of specific mythical persons. In spite of their mythic status, they weren’t held out to be the ideal. Also, you don’t differentiate between Greek and Roman culture, which were very different on this issue: Greeks idealized small penises, but Romans were another matter. They idealized big penises as paragons of strength and agression. Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks in many ways, but not in this case.
I remember reading something a while ago in college, but I’ll be damned if I can find it anywhere. It was a psychological study in which men were shown non-arousing movies with interlaced frames of rounded objects, like baseballs, oranges, and upturned bowls. A significant portion of the men in the non-control group were aroused at the end of the movie, without explanation. The study concluded something about curviness being hardwired into the male brain.
Obviously, there are lots of counter examples, but I think it did hit on something. I guess the question is: would men find breasts arousing if they weren’t told about them one way or another?
