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]

quote:

---

Originally posted by florida-david:
[qb]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.[/qb]

---

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 [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img] [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif[/img]

Steevo here

[mickeynoblesse]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jon-Marc:
[qb]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.[/qb]

---

[Angel]

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

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! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif[/img]

[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.