Are women's breasts sexual?

[wannabenaked2001]

There is a discussion at Angel's topfreedom yahoo group which has split off in many directions. One of the splinter discussions is, are breasts sexual?

My main argument is No, they are not, because they are not sexual organs. Our society has, however, made them sexual. Meaning they are consitered sexual only in our "modern" society much like nudity is often thought of as sexual.

What do you think, and why?

I have alot more ideas on the subject, but I'll post them as we go along, or you can take a look at them at Angel's group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usa_topfreedom/

[wannabenaked2001]

There is a discussion at Angel's topfreedom yahoo group which has split off in many directions. One of the splinter discussions is, are breasts sexual?

My main argument is No, they are not, because they are not sexual organs. Our society has, however, made them sexual. Meaning they are consitered sexual only in our "modern" society much like nudity is often thought of as sexual.

What do you think, and why?

I have alot more ideas on the subject, but I'll post them as we go along, or you can take a look at them at Angel's group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usa_topfreedom/

As a nudist breasts don't excite me as they did in my younger years. However, I believe that they ARE a symbol of sexuality to many men. They are a turn-on to men who are not used to seeing them displayed in full view, and that's the majority of men. While men certainly know what a woman's breasts look like, most men don't see them out in the open as much as naturist men who have become accustomed to seeing them. They're not the attraction to me they once were, but they WERE once VERY sexual to me as a teen and a young man.

[Rik]

No, women's breasts are not sexual organs - they provide the function of feeding babies and nothing else so how can they be sexual?

But I agree with Jon-Marc, they are an indicator of sexuality and as such are capable of arousing sexual thoughts in men whether covered or not; the same can be applied to other indicators of sexuality such as facial features and general build. But it's hardly surprising, because it's part of the biology of men that the very presence of a woman can stimulate sexual arousal. I don't necessarily mean physical arousal as you can be mentally aroused without the physical effect.

I guess the issue from a nudist perspective would be "is there any justification for keeping them be covered up?" Well as naturists we would argue that whether or not they were sexual they should not be hidden away any more than the face or the genitals?

If there is an argument that, on balance, it is better that they do not arouse sexual thoughts then I would have thought that the logical step would be to uncover them, for quite often it is the very coverings which enhance their attractiveness and therefore increase the potential for sexual arousal.

Rik

[florida-david]

the textiles which most people use to cover breasts are usually designed to heighten the breasts' "appeal". they push the breasts up into unnatural positions, or sometimes barely cover enough (while pulling them up unnaturally) that men are eager to see the rest of the breast (can you say 'baywatch'). i think breasts become less sexual when they are fully exposed and not being "interpretted" by the clothings unnatural effects. but this is the same for all clothing, it is designed to make the human body look like something it is not.

women's breasts are designed for feeding children, this is why so many men are against breastfeeding. breastfeeding women discover the real reason for breasts and the men get jealous because they no longer have sole "ownership" over their object of desire. when younger, my wife and i went to a breastfeeding class and one of the couples had a huge blow out fight in the hall that he did not want her breastfeeding due to his "ownership" rights. they probably got divorced.

now, of course, i am not saying that breasts do not have other functions that a happy couple can explore. the same is true for a man's breast (though this sensation needs to be developed more in most men). however, we must remember that human's are still animals and the breasts are there for a function. i like to see my wife's breasts with nothing covering them, especially when my kid's where breastfeeding. now that the kids are done breastfeeding, i like to see her breasts for my own satisfaction, but that's an entirely different subject....

[Rik]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by florida-david:
when younger, my wife and i went to a breastfeeding class and one of the couples had a huge blow out fight in the hall that he did not want her breastfeeding due to his "ownership" rights. they probably got divorced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>LOL. And did she want him to stop urinating because she had some sort of ownership of his penis?

Rik

[steevo]

For myself it has been a big help to start seeing women nude. Because when covered they conjure up images. But when seen nude they(breasts( just become something of beauty. And it also puts me on a more equal level with women when we are all nude. things just seem more normal.
I LOVE IT MAN /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Steevo here

[mickeynoblesse]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
As a nudist breasts don't excite me as they did in my younger years. However, I believe that they ARE a symbol of sexuality to many men. They are a turn-on to men who are not used to seeing them displayed in full view, and that's the majority of men. While men certainly know what a woman's breasts look like, most men don't see them out in the open as much as naturist men who have become accustomed to seeing them. They're not the attraction to me they once were, but they WERE once VERY sexual to me as a teen and a young man. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Angel]

Wow, I feel almost famous! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

For those of you who haven't visited usa_topfreedom, so far *most* of the members agree that breasts are not sex organs ... which is not to say they aren't sexually stimulating.

I personally find the sight of a man's back - long, lean, and with well-defined musculature - to be very sexually stimulating ... although no one will take up the argument that the back is a sex organ! The same with clean, fresh, thick, well-groomed hair (as opposed to lanky, greasy dreadlocks!) - but hair isn't a sex organ either.

Men like Harrison Ford and Sean Connery tend to make People Magazine's Sexiest Men of the Year lists regularly - not because of anything related to their genitalia, but because of their public personalities. Val Kilmer makes the same list because of his lips!

In short, just because a certain feature is sexually stimulating does *not* make it a sex organ.

If we all have to keep concealed everything about us which someone else might find sexually stimulating, it won't *matter* if we wear clothes or not, because we'll have to conceal our entire bodies and attitudes from each other and live in a state of isolation! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Kristin]

I agree, breasts are not sexual organs, they are not sexual by function.
But i think the way guys look at them, think about them, etc., they certainly are sexual in other ways.

[Kristin]

Also, question for Angel...

Could you let me into your group even though I'm only 14? Pleeeeeeeeeease?

[nakedinsandiego]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> For myself it has been a big help to start seeing women nude. Because when covered they conjure up images. But when seen nude they(breasts( just become something of beauty. And it also puts me on a more equal level with women when we are all nude. things just seem more normal. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I couldn't agree more. The imagination drives stimulation. What is great about nudism is that you just see people as they are and there is nothing visual to imagine. It is a tremendously cleansing experience which provides freedom on many levels. I think men who grow up without seeing nude women in a non-sexual context develop a very active imagination about this subject, and breasts are greatly sexualized. I think it is so healthy for children of both sexes who are exposed to a wholesome nudist lifestyle. The boys, I think, are essentially "inoculated" against the kind of sexualization of the female form that is "normal" in our society. I'm really envious of the kids I see at the nudist resort I visit. I wish my parents had brought me up in such a healthy environment.

[barelybob]

As a young lad I once read a story about a society which was ruled by a beautiful woman, who wore nothing but a pair of gloves. All the men of this society were obsessed about what her hands were like. This seems to be what we are discussing here. If you deny access to something a person's curiosity is "aroused". Once "exposure" is made the curiosity is satisfied.

[Frank R]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by barelybob:
As a young lad I once read a story about a society which was ruled by a beautiful woman, who wore nothing but a pair of gloves. All the men of this society were obsessed about what her hands were like. This seems to be what we are discussing here. If you deny access to something a person's curiosity is "aroused". Once "exposure" is made the curiosity is satisfied. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>While I can't say I have ever read this story, I think the point is well made. I remember reading that if you came upon an Arab woman nude, she would cover her face first. We can create a sexual aurora about almost anything and I think movies and TV play a big part. They use a woman's breasts to tantalize and tease male viewers and keep them wanting to see more. When was the last time you saw a woman with small or very small breasts topless on TV or in the movies?

Frank,

That is very true. The main character women in a movie, particularly one that has nudity always is well endowed because breats have been made to be sexual in nature in the minds of men because of being hidden from view like a man's genitals. It's only "natural" that a they have become something that gets mens' and boys' fanasies working overtime--at least until they get used to seeing them, and all mystery is taken away.

Of course, though they are not sexual objects, they are still something that men enjoy. Maybe that is carried over from our textiles days for those of us who weren't raised as nudists. The time was that the only place you saw a woman's breasts was in a porn magazine or the privacy of your home between husband and wife. The average male isn't used to seeing the breast right out in the open.

If women were allowed to be topless in public. I believe the mystery would disappear after a while because seeing breasts would become commonplace.

Different men are turned on by different parts of the body. Some like legs, some butts, some feet (that last one I can't understand), and the list goes on. However, in naturism there's nothing covered and left to the imagination. There is nothing left to have a fantasy about. It all becomes commomplace. /infopop/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

[barelybob]

Unfortunately, these are the reasons that most women have a problem with naturism. If we could eliminate these influences, perhaps more women could be comfortable with themselves. I have known a number of women who enjoyed being nude, but felt too "inadequate" to do so in public.

[GAR]

Frank I have to agree with you.I have been around the wrold. I have seen a lot of different customs and this is why I believe nude is best. It also feels the best. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[Bob S.]

"I personally find the sight of a man's back - long, lean, and with well-defined musculature - to be very sexually stimulating "

Wow Angel, we have something in common. I remember when I was younger and liked the look at the bare back of girls my age and women. It wasn't that I necessarily wanted to see their breasts or think they are sexual-- I can't stand breasts that are big-- but rather that it gave the illusion that they were topless. I still like seeing a woman's or girl's bare back even now; not necessarily in a sexual way, though.

"As a young lad I once read a story about a society which was ruled by a beautiful woman, who wore nothing but a pair of gloves. All the men of this society were obsessed about what her hands were like."

barelybob, your story reminds me of a "Weird AL" Yankovich video for his song, "Amish Paradise". In it, two young Amish boys were looking at an Amish version of a "Playboy" where the Centerfold was this attractive Amish woman lifting her dress to barely show her ankle, which made the two boys smile widely.

Bob S.

The original topic was ...Are womens breasts sexual? I feel this is different than are they sexual organs as mentioned in some of the posts.Breasts are definitely sexual as I believe the stimulation of the breasts and nipples play a large part in the arousal of both sexes. Wether or not they are sexual(as well as other areas of the body...neck , back, feet /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif etc.) depends on the brain .... and where the persons mind is.If a man goes to a CO beach or resort with sex on his mind he will probably find breast arousing.

Are breasts sexual? They can be....

It all hinges on your minds really. I can convince you that my little pinky is sexual given about 60 seconds and the right frame of mind. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[ranul]

now this is not an exact quote of the editorial .
on 630 ched in edmonton alberta . al stafford does on each day . On the one that he did on friday . He say that men and woman should both be allowed to go top less if they feel like it . Whether or not they do should be up to them . He also said it is one thing to walk out of the house without a shirt on but it is another for a woman to remove her shirt just to get attention.

[Laura Lopez]

Sure they are sexual. One of the better ways that I get sexually aroused is from their stimulation.
And being a young woman I have to admit I?ve used my own to arouse many men, exposing them partially wearing sexy outfit or lingerie, and I?m sure I?m not the only nudist woman who has done that, and many nudist men would be aroused by something like this. However I think his full exposure causes less arousal to men, I practice topless anytime I go to a not clothing-optional beach, and I feel that?s not a big deal for most of the people, but in Europe is a well extended practical.
I?m nudist, but I?m a sexual being too, and sometimes I get aroused when I see the perfect rounded *** of a man, so I think is natural to some nudist men get slightly aroused, not having an erection, watching a nice breast.

[Nude in the North]

Humans are sexual beings. There's no avoiding that. Men as well as Women are attracted to different parts of the body for a wide range of reasons.In the Clothed world Men are seen staring at breasts more often because they are most often enhanced by clothing. You rarely see a man staring at a woman that is wearing baggy cloths like sweat pants and sweatshirts. But if a woman wears tight clothes or push up bras they will turn some heads.
Revealing Clothes Turn Heads, Period. It's just a natural reaction.
Are women's Breasts Sexual? Without a Doubt!
Should they be covered because of societies Immature attitude towards them? Definately NOT!

Steve

[Trailscout]

I think the underlying issue beneath this question is:
If a person can scientifically demonstrate that a certain part of the body is of enormous sexual interest to a segment of society, (here the example is female breasts being potentially sexually attractive to men); is society obligated to pass laws requiring that a sexually appealing body part be fully covered in public places?

If so would it also be necessary that the clothing not even reveal the shape of the sexy body part?

First, such a proposition assumes that the legal rights of those who object to the exposure of certain parts of the human anatomy superceds the right of individuals to wear as much or as little as they please in public places.

Or perhaps the assumption is that exposing such parts of the body is a distracting nuisance and that no one has a right to distract others by his or her wardrobe or lack thereof.

What if we lived in a society where the law considered one's wardrobe, (even in public places) to be a private matter? Would there not still be some social considerations?

In areas where it is perfectly legal for women to go topless, would social conditions still render toplesses untenable? That is, would a topless woman be harassed?

I echo what Rik said. I think that men are attracted instinctively to certain female secondary sexual characteristics, including breasts. For men and women to have some mild initial physical interest in one another is necessary for the propagation of the species. I have seen women admire my body. A certain amount of that is tolerable. I think that it is self-evident in nudist societies that sexual attraction is manageable and people tend to accustom themselves to the regular sight of nudity of the opposite sex.

I do believe that women who are topless in places where men are unaccustomed to it, may be subject to stares and even harassment. Every woman will surely use her own judgement as to whether she feels safe without her top. If the women are in groups, there can be safety in numbers. Perhaps that is why more women do not bare their breasts even where the law allows. Sure we can round up the "usual suspects": body shame, religion, etc., but society must also be saturated with topless women long enough that it becomes the norm. Perhaps then, the stares and harassment will be a thing of the past. Social activism and organization is key. Isolated women cannot achieve this goal.

[desertdude]

Angel has posed a very interesting question. I think the answer is both yes and no. While they are not really sex organs, they are sexual in nature. The movie, fashion, and advertising agencies in the textile world have made millions selling that idea to males and have taken every opportunity to re-inforce it whenever they can. It's no wonder the average male is aroused by looking at the female breast much as Pavlo's condition response theory suggests.

Raised in a society that worships the breasts of women makes it very difficult for males not to be affected by them. By breasts not normally being seen by males unless in a sexual context, also adds to their mystery. If the exposure of breasts were commonplace I think a lot of the mystery that surrounds them from a male standpoint would be diminished and men would look upon women more as individuals and the entire person rather than as a sexual being. I think this is one of the main advantages that children raised in a nudist lifestyle have over textile kids. Nudist kids do not concentrate on the physical aspects of a person but the whole person, and as such can relate to each other much better and with understanding and confidence.

I've always felt a little awkward and embarassed being around a woman that was breastfeeding her child. I'm not sure why as I know it's a very normal and beautiful bonding experience between the mother and infant. Perhaps if topfreedom were commonplace, other males would not have to feel the way I did about it when I was growing up. And that would be a great thing.

One more thing....in the state where I live, one of the things described in the indecent exposure statute says " exposing the female nipple or areola." Thats absolutely ridiculous. Males have both nipples and areolas, to say a male's isn't indecent and a woman's is is an unfair, ignorant, backward thinking, insulting, double standard that needs to be changed.

And thats just my opinion. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

[David77]

I am told that on the beaches of Brazil, that the sight of a large butt on a woman is considered more sexy than the sight of the breasts, and that smaller breast sizes are considered more attractive.

[Gary Naturist]

Here in Canada, topfreedom for women is pretty well established. In British Columbia and Ontario, it is well established that women can go topfree anywhere than men can go topfree. I believe that this is the case in the other provinces as well, but exercise of this right hasn't been as well tested.

Gwen Jacob (not a nudist) gets much of the credit. In 1991, she went for a topfree stroll on a blisteringly hot day in Guelph, Ontario, and was charged with indecency after a complaint by a mother who was concerned about the impact on her young children. Gwen was convicted and fined $75. She appealed, and in 1996 the Ontario Court of Appeals overturned the conviction.

The appeal-court overturned her conviction because "There was nothing degrading or dehumanizing in what the appellant did. The scope of her activity was limited and was entirely non-commercial. No one who was offended was forced to continue looking at her. I cannot conclude that what the appellant did exceeded the community standard of tolerance when all of the relevant circumstances are taken into account."

For more information on this case, go to http://www.fcn.ca/Gwen.html.

For information on the general subject of topfreedom for women, go to the website of the Topfree Equal Rights Assocation at http://www.tera.ca.

Gary

[David77]

I think it is Japan where traditionally the sight of the back of the neck is considered a very sexy "turn-on" and where they do not have the "fixation on the breasts" as much as in the western world.

Women in an African tribe are turned-on by the teeth and the tallest, most slender (skinny?) men.

We in the western world did not always find skinny females, like "Twiggy" and others, to be attractive, but found the shape of women like in Rubins painting more attractive. Hawaiians traditionally found fat, plump people the most attractive.

Therefore, big breasts as a "turn-on" for the men, here, is somewhat culturally determined, I believe. However, I find that in art class, some men prefer to paint from the models with the smaller breasts. I refer the look of the whole person and not just parts, but attitude and personality is the most important for inter-personal relationship.

[Rik]

Gary

What I found interesting in the article at http://www.fcn.ca/Gwen.html is that the favourable reactions to the result of the case were based on challenge to existing culture by intellectual reasoning and the unfavourable reactions amounted to nothing more than "I just don't like it and nor do most people".

It's good to see that logic, rather than irrational emotion, won the day.

Rik

[Jochanaan]

Excellent question, excellent answers. But we should probably divide the question into several parts, like this:

Are women's breasts sexual organs? No!

Can they be used in sex? Yes. So can hands, lips, feet, tongues, eyebrows...

Do they evoke sexual stimulation? Sometimes, depending on the context.

Should they be covered for this reason? No, but women may want to cover them for other reasons, such as safety or cold. Besides, covering them does little to avoid lust; imagination takes over...

To me they are a symbol of life-giving womanhood, functional and beautiful. How then should I be offended by them, as if I were a Victorian man offended by anything to do with bodily functions?

[Bob S.]

The female breast is seen here in the US as so sexual that 20 states do not even grant women the right to use their breast as nature intended, to feed their infant, in public.

http://www.chronicle-tribune.com/news/stories/20030204/localnews/912008.html

This article may be time sensitive, so I will also give a very brief summary. In Illinois, women can currently face legal action for breastfeeding their babies in public "for appearing in a state of nudity." This new proposal would simply make the act of breastfeeding exempt from public indecency laws.

The only critic of the bill that was reported was from the Le Leche League International, which suggests that it doesn't go far enough in granting legal protection for women. There are no quotes from the opposition to the legislation (those who want to keep breastfeeding in public illegal).

My question is why would any government not grant women this basic right? Oh wait, any mention that the breast is non-sexual would be working against the idea that it should be covered up. Shhh.

Bob S.

[Willbtan]

Are breasts sexual? This is cultural and seasonal.
The clothing industry is always changing the erogenous zone to sell more clothes. It depends on what your particular circle of influence view is.
As a young boy in the 50's the ladies in our very conservative church wore low neck line dresses with lots of cleveage showing. We also had women who breast feed right in the pew. So from my young viewpoint, breasts were not an object of sex.
For those who would argue that keeping people clothed will deterr sexual assault:
I lived on the sub continent of Asia for 3 years.
There was a very high Muslim population that required full cover for women going out in public.
In those areas I found many villages where 90+% of the women had been raped. So I see clothing as not making for a more positive environment.
Our advertising uses womens breasts as sexual to sell products.
Our clothing compulsive society is producing a lot of the negative body image attitudes.

[Laura Lopez]

Gary Naturist said:
"Here in Canada, topfreedom for women is pretty well established. In British Columbia and Ontario, it is well established that women can go topfree anywhere than men can go topfree. I believe that this is the case in the other provinces as well, but exercise of this right hasn't been as well tested."

Here in Spain is established that women can go topfree everywhere. Most women don?t do it, but top-less is common at the beaches, public swimming-pools, lakes, rivers, etc?

And Bob S. said
"The female breast is seen here in the US as so sexual that 20 states do not even grant women the right to use their breast as nature intended, to feed their infant, in public."

Either is pretty accepted breastfeeding in public, though most women feed their children in private, but no one cares to do it in the presence of their relatives, friends, or neighbours, even if they don?t practice top-less at all.
In a previos post, I said breasts are sexual, but I think they shouldn?t always be seen as sexual elements. It?s a natural thing for women not covering their breasts in many situations, bathing, suntanning, feeding, etc ... are just some of those, and it should be accepted more than just a right.

[RIVERRAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Angel:
Wow, I feel almost famous! /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

For those of you who haven't visited usa_topfreedom, so far *most* of the members agree that breasts are not sex organs ... which is not to say they aren't sexually stimulating.

I personally find the sight of a man's back - long, lean, and with well-defined musculature - to be very sexually stimulating ... although no one will take up the argument that the back is a sex organ! The same with clean, fresh, thick, well-groomed hair (as opposed to lanky, greasy dreadlocks!) - but hair isn't a sex organ either.

Men like Harrison Ford and Sean Connery tend to make People Magazine's Sexiest Men of the Year lists regularly - not because of anything related to their genitalia, but because of their public personalities. Val Kilmer makes the same list because of his lips!

In short, just because a certain feature is sexually stimulating does *not* make it a sex organ.

If we all have to keep concealed everything about us which someone else might find sexually stimulating, it won't *matter* if we wear clothes or not, because we'll have to conceal our entire bodies and attitudes from each other and live in a state of isolation! /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Angel you are absolutly right this is why I have joined your group, you can only hide so much, if you don't hide anything then what is there to lust over.

[RIVERRAT]

If you are a Fox News person as I am, you would have seen a great deal of Victorias secret and a big womans fasion show, what you saw was not so much breasts as buttocks, glutes, which you can leave unclothed because men and women both seem to have them, go figure, I personnally if I had to pick a body part I'm a butt man. So if we see what is covered and what isn't I guess it's in the eye of beholder, I have seen men with as much breast as many women and women with as little as small boys, we need to realise that the only way limit lust and the sexual parts of our bodies, is to be naked, nothing is left to imagine and there for lust over, what would playboy and other nudist magazines be if we were all nude?

[RIVERRAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
There is a discussion at Angel's topfreedom yahoo group which has split off in many directions. One of the splinter discussions is, are breasts sexual?

My main argument is No, they are not, because they are not sexual organs. Our society has, however, made them sexual. Meaning they are consitered sexual only in our "modern" society much like nudity is often thought of as sexual.

What do you think, and why?

I have alot more ideas on the subject, but I'll post them as we go along, or you can take a look at them at Angel's group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usa_topfreedom/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[RIVERRAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wannabenaked2001:
There is a discussion at Angel's topfreedom yahoo group which has split off in many directions. One of the splinter discussions is, are breasts sexual?

My main argument is No, they are not, because they are not sexual organs. Our society has, however, made them sexual. Meaning they are consitered sexual only in our "modern" society much like nudity is often thought of as sexual.

What do you think, and why?

I have alot more ideas on the subject, but I'll post them as we go along, or you can take a look at them at Angel's group.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/usa_topfreedom/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree many men see the breasts as sextual, and granted, they are by design differant than men, to provide for the feeding of babies, this in early humanity was a nesseccity, but also back then, few people wore clothes, now women who choose to breast feed should have the option same as those who don't, the breasts are designed to provide food for an infant. men don't "usually develope these glands, though some men do and are allowed to be topless" I guess a ugly topless man with breast is acceptable but a woman is not? Explain that to your 3 year old. I guess what I'm trying to say is thanks to the likes of playboy and others which in all honesty I have taken pleasure from, I now reallise the human body was designed by GOD, yes to be admired, yes for sexual perposes, but it is a beautiful creation, and GOD knew what he was doing, yes there is lust and other such things, but these same people who look at breasts sexually, they should cover apes, dogs and cats, and the like we wouldn,t want the world to think there breasts are for more than feeding there young. I hope I haven't overstated this.

[RIVERRAT]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by paptep:
Of course womens breast are sexual.
I have been a nudist naturist for over
20 years and I still love to see and carress my wifes breast. I also enjoy seeing other womens
breast. Nude or clothed. A nice tight butt or
flat tummy is also very nice. I don't see any
thing wrong with enjoying the beauty of women. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The questian was are womens breasts sexual, the answer is no, if the question was are womens breasts sensual, the answer would be yes, mens are sensative to the advanses of a woman, that does not give men the right to expose them to the public and not women, I support the womans right to be topfree the same as men, we have a law permitting topfree women in ny state, I have seen many topless women at beaches, I didn't notice any sign bearers, to chase them away

[nude2be]

The original question was, are breasts sexual?
Well, quite simply, yes they are. I enjoy, during intimacy, stimulating my wife's breasts and she enjoys being stimulated. My wife has tried stimulating my breasts, but did not get the same reaction.
Are breats solely sexual? Well, no.
Should breasts be covered? No.

Maybe the term sexual could be defined better for this discussion, as there seems to be many avenues for discussion. Which direction did the original questioner want to go?

-nude2be

[hw]

From a female standpoint, yes, breasts can be sexual. They are there for nourishment for babies. But when the need for that is gone, who says breasts can't be there for enjoyment. I find my breasts play a very important roll in foreplay. The nerves are very sensative, and are great for the whole sexual experience.
Hope you can all benefit from this post.
nuDDe /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

[Ceilican]

Well, my opinion.....

Breasts are definitly sexual attractive...i have a question about that subject....what do you call "stares"? looking a beatuful woman seems normal to me, be her nude or not...a woman with nice breasts will be "stared" even if he not show them nude....my question is...WHEN a look is considered an offensive stare? (i´m really interested on the subjetc...im´not very famirialized with nudism protocol and i wanna learn)

Not allowing breadfeating looks Barbaric to me...here in Argentina topfree is not allowed, but feeding babies in piblic are considered normal.

[nimrod]

I find breast sensual, clothed or not, but I also find myself looking at the small of a womans back if it is exposed. If a woman is wearing a short shirt and hip-huggers, just WOW, it is like a beautiful work of art framed for viewing. My point is it is the indivisuals point of view. But the breast can also be used in the act of sex, for men and women. I personally love when my nipples are licked and sucked, but also my ear lobes, and neck, and well you get the point.

I believe that part of the allure of the female breast is society telling us that it is naughty and sexual in nature, a "look at these and you will get to that" mentality. Part is just plain human nature, we are animals and not that far from the cave and the survival of the human race instinct is still with us, so female breast are important to our survival, and that means bigger is better because they will provide more milk for the children, and even if times are tough it could mean the survival of the tribe with lactating females providing milk for all, goats and cows were not always domesticated. Fortunately we are human and can grow and evolve and hopefully put these views and urges in proper prospective.

[tomkojohn]

Whether breasts are sexual or not will depend on culture. In most societies, a woman's breasts are considered sexual, and so most people raised in those societies will view them as such. This doesn't mean that breasts don't have more than one purpose.

This also doesn't mean that we have to be obsessed by breasts. I find that I notice women's breasts almost all the time. It is an almost built-in background awareness of one of the most obvious outward signals that a person is female. In many of today's fashion trends of many clothing items being sexually ambiguous, outward manifestations of the sex of a person is often the only way to tell if the person is female. As I am a heterosexual male, I am attracted to females. Perhaps my primitive "hunting instincts" are related to why I notice breasts. In any case, I find I cannot "turn off" this noticing instinct. However, I have been aculturated to not stare at women's breasts. Men who don't get a clue that most women do not appreciate having their breasts stared at do not do well in the society of women.

For nudists it is really no different than for textiles -- the most important thing is to be polite, and bear in mind others feelings. This will vary depending on culture, so learn the culture of your environment, and act accordingly. When in doubt ask someone who is likely to know better than you.

[tinner666]

David77 must have gotten a look at my Nov, 1993 Playboy Magazine! http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/laugh.gif

When movies or National Geographic show a village in which all the children are naked, the women are topless, nobody is staring at breasts. And no pediphils seem to be around either. Go figure.

Personally, breasts can be sensual, but I never think about them as such. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
I can 'multi-task'. On one woman, I might think her breast is nice, on another, it might be an ankle. Or a back. Or neck. Or maybe just the eyes. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif Every person in this world has something very nice about them. Especially inside. That's what counts for me. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif
Sorry for wandering. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif

[Ceilican]

Very good point Tinner.....why there is no pedophiles in pre-urban cultures is one of the most noticeable proofs that repression always do mare wrong than good....

But, as i know, those cultures where women go topless not necesary don´t look breasts as sexy.....simply that is not a hiden sexy attribute.

[Bob S.]

Ceilican:"my question is...WHEN a look is considered an offensive stare?"

That is a hard thing to explain. It ultimately has to do with your behaviour while looking, length of stare, area of stare, and most importantly, the reaction of the person being looked at.

Frank:"When movies or National Geographic show a village in which all the children are naked, the women are topless, nobody is staring at breasts. And no pediphils seem to be around either."

Well, that last part may not be entirely true. Pedophiles are in every society and culture. When in a clothesfree society, it isn't the nudity that they strive for but the sex.

But in those same cultures, there usually is a strong family style village that will help look out for everyone. And since everyone knows everyone else, it would be hard to take advantage of anyone. Also, in such societies, there is more of a reliance on others to help keep things going. An intimate trust grows among everyone. If one person is harmed by another, the whole village is harmed. Once you lose the trust of the whole village, it is nearly impossible to gain it back.

Bob S.

[Sailor]

When I was traveling around the world on a sailboat, I became friends with a woman on the island of Tarawa in the country of Kiribati. One day she asked me a question:

"What is wrong with the American men? Don't they know that this (she pointed to her pubic area) is for them and this (she pointed to her breast) is for babies? Are they that stupid?"

I had no answer to her question, but I sure laughed!

In her country they are now covering their breasts when they are on the islands that get foreign visitors because they don't like being stared at. But they don't understand why they are being stared at!

[jon71]

Here is my two cents. Breasts are a beautiful piece of GOD's creation and in certain situations they can be sexual. There is however no reason for a double standard. My nipples are sensitive if sucked on or played with. That's true for both men and women, women just have more area to appreciate.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jon71:
My nipples are sensitive if sucked on or played with. That's true for both men and women, women just have more area to appreciate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have not seen any scientific test results, but I assume that male nipples can hardly compare to the much greater sensativity of the female nipples. I have also read that some males have very little sensitivity in their nipples.

[Sauna]

Womens breasts are sexual and that is the God's intention to keep up the pair relationship.

[capers]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">God's intention to keep up the pair relationship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Womens breasts are sexual and that is the God's intention to keep up the pair relationship </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you know God's intention?

[tinner666]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And no pediphils seem to be around either."

Well, that last part may not be entirely true. Pedophiles are in every society and culture. When in a clothesfree society, it isn't the nudity that they strive for but the sex.

But in those same cultures, there usually is a strong family style village that will help look out for everyone. And since everyone knows everyone else, it would be hard to take advantage of anyone. Also, in such societies, there is more of a reliance on others to help keep things going. An intimate trust grows among everyone. If one person is harmed by another, the whole village is harmed. Once you lose the trust of the whole village, it is nearly impossible to gain it back.

Bob S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're right. I wasn't about to go into it in depth. These cultures seem to have a 'coming of age ceremony'. As best I can tell, and this is by ennuendo, bad things would happen to anybody doing wrong.
There would be no secrets there!
Like ex-president Hillary said, "It takes a village to raise a child".

[tinner666]

Sorry. I've wandered off topic. I'll quit this thread. http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/blush.gif

[RalphVa]

They certainly get our attention. A couple days ago at a meeting, a lady came up to me as I was seated. My eyes were drawn to her low-cut blouse as she bent down to talk to me. I made sure that I did make eye contact, but it was after my eyes looked at those prizes.

Montagnard women in the highlands of Vietnam used to go topless in public. With the appearance of the Americans, they started wearing tops or just bras.

When we were invited to a Montagnard village for a Nompei party, I was sitting sipping Nompei out of a 20-30 gallon jug through a bamboo straw while watching 3 or 4 women behind the hut doing their work topless. They were out of the public then and reverted back to their custom.

Custom for the men was a loin cloth.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Womens breasts are sexual and that is the God's intention to keep up the pair relationship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe women's breasts are sensual "to keep up the pair relationship" with the baby, so that the baby's constant sucking of nipples will not be such a dreaded annoyance for the mother, but will be more pleasurable for the mother.
(Just a theory).

One person on the internet said, "The nerve endings in the mother's nipples help enhance the mother-infant bond by ensuring a good latch".

[krcNY]

David77
It was not so enjoyable or comfortable at first. You need to master the technique in order to relax where you are comfortable. Most females that I know have a hard time in the beginning. By the time I had my third child, I was a pro.

I would also like to thinks that the breasts are sensual at times. But the advertisements really push them as being sexual. Look at the Victoria Secret Ads for underwear.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was not so enjoyable or comfortable at first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
May I ask, why is this? Did it annoy the woman because it tended to aroused her in a way that she did not want to be aroused, or were the nipples too tender and painful?

[shãybare]

http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/cool4.gif
Sex is definitely a wonderful thing. Yes it is for procreation but it feels so good we use it just for the good feelings we recieve from doing it. Are the breasts sexual? Yes, but I believe the entire body is sexual. You can't dismiss any body part as being sexual.

When making love to your partner, you learn from them what body parts are more sensitive to them, what needs more attention. All people are different even though the breasts and genital areas are traditionally(?) the primary targets of attention. That, however, does not diminish the use of the breasts for their primary function.

[David77]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes, but I believe the entire body is sexual. You can't dismiss any body part as being sexual. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree. There are erogenous zones all over the body, and people have various zone preferences. The skin's pleasure of caress all over the adult body is precious.

[krcNY]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by David77:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was not so enjoyable or comfortable at first. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
May I ask, why is this? Did it annoy the woman because it tended to aroused her in a way that she did not want to be aroused, or were the nipples too tender and painful? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The babies do not know where or when, they just latch on. If they are not aligned properly this can be very painful. So painful some new moms quite trying, yes the nipples get sore. I takes a while to get used to things and then it gets more comfortable. Yes, once you get the hang of it, it is a breeze.

When nursing I did not get aroused, but found pleasure in the fact that I was able to nurse my baby and he/she is content. It is a quiet sense of Joy. I do no know any woman that was aroused when nursing a child.

[shomymojo]

what causes sexual stimulation...like beauty...is in the eye of the beholder

[Bob S.]

Jason:"The web site link could not be found. It may have been removed or is unavailable."

Jason, the link was to a news article from three years ago. This thread was taken out of hibernation.

Frank:"You're right. I wasn't about to go into it in depth. These cultures seem to have a 'coming of age ceremony'."

I feel like delving a little farther. Such cultures that have younger women, even girls who have recently had their first menses, able to get married and procreate. This cannot be defined as pedophilia. For pedophilia to exist, there must be a sexual urge for the prepubescent or barely pubescent child/body--according to our own psychiatric assn (the APA).

In those cultures that allow for younger marraiges, it would not be a "paraphilia" or abnormal sexual fixation--unless the finxation was harmful to the children.

Shay:"I believe the entire body is sexual. You can't dismiss any body part as being sexual."

I wholeheartedly agree with you, Shay. The sex response sets off endorphins all over the body, increases the blood flow, and a whole host of other changes in the body. A lot of the body becomes extra sensitive to touch. And yes, that includes the breasts.

But to suggest that the breasts are that much more sexual in the normal world than other parts of the body, two things:

1. The female breast is always covered up, so of course it will be viewed with more of a sexual connotation.

2. As showmymojo said: what causes sexual stimulation...like beauty...is in the eye of the beholder

Bob S.

[karrenlandry]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sauna:
Womens breasts are sexual and that is the God's intention to keep up the pair relationship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By 'pair relationship' do you mean that between a man and a woman? Two women? Certainly not two men if you're talking about women's breasts? Are you suggesting you and God are homophobic? And anyway, if you have a direct line to God's intentions, why aren't you telling us something more useful, like the meaning of life or what happens when we die, etc., etc.?

karrenlandry

[karrenlandry]

OK...here's a woman's perspective:

First of all, define 'sexual'. Sensual? Sexually arousing? Icons that represent sex in American culture? etc.

Secondly, in my opinion female breasts are no more and no less 'sexual' than the rest of her body.

Third, I am a small-breasted woman (B cup) and I don't feel any more or any less 'sexy' (define that one) because my culture prefers/is taught to prefer big knockers. And while we're at it, what's all this clothing bulls**t to push 'em up, point 'em out, add padding, and at all costs cover up the nipples? Sheesh. I gave up wearing bras as a teenager, and it's annoying to know I'll be stared at or deemed uncouth if my nipples cause the slightest bulge under my shirt! I'm sometimes convinced we're born with all these ridiculous hangups about our bodies, our looks, and sex.

...Anyway, stop staring at my breasts...and my ankles, too. 'Taint polite.

karrenlandry

[Sauna]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by karrenlandry:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sauna:
Womens breasts are sexual and that is the God's intention to keep up the pair relationship. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
By 'pair relationship' do you mean that between a man and a woman? Two women? Certainly not two men if you're talking about women's breasts? Are you suggesting you and God are homophobic? And anyway, if you have a direct line to God's intentions, why aren't you telling us something more useful, like the meaning of life or what happens when we die, etc., etc.?

karrenlandry </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I mean woman and man forming family preferably with children. They both should be interesting sexually and sensually to each other to keep it up. Breast are also very important to children because a lot of tenderness is in them from beginning. Men are boys and children forever. (I'm a male)
Secondly the size do not matter. The very big ones are ugly in my mind specially artifical ones. (I know that some think other way but this is my opinion) Bras are made for them. Let your nipples be free.

[tinner666]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...Anyway, stop staring at my breasts...and my ankles, too. 'Taint polite. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps we could gaze into your beautiful eyes?? http://oakhurstonline.com/icon/happy.gif