In the United States, at least, there exists a double-standard where it is taboo to show the breasts of a woman from a Western nation, but acceptable to show the breasts of women from tribal areas. Why do you think this is? Does this offend you?
2007-03-09 06:05:57 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Some good responses so far. Thank you.
Many of you seem to feel that the taboo itself is ridiculous, and I agree with you.
When I asked this, I was actually thinking more about the underlying racism involved. I get the impression that this double-standard says that tribal women are inferior or animal-like, and only "civilized women" need to have their nipples covered.
National Geographic covers are never censored, but you will never see the uncensored breasts of an American woman on the magazine rack at Barnes & Noble.
2007-03-09 07:35:41 · update #1
Excellent question! Why the first is considered geography and second is considered pornography? Yes I think there are double standards, connected with our deep prejudice about who is more civilized. Tribal women are just considered less civilized, less they are "one of us", more they are a part of nature, so we can just make them objects of observing like any other natural phenomenon. Also, since they are not "one of us", there was no interest for white colonial man to posses and control them, just to use them for his sexual pleasures, so there was no need to keep them away from the eyes of other men. Yes, I think it is very offensive and humiliating for these women.
There is one very interesting text of Aleksandar Boskovic, "Out of Africa; Images of Women in Anthropology and Popular Culture", analyzing exactly the problem you mentioned. Here is the link: http://www.etno-muzej.si/pdf/0354-0316_11_boskovic_out.pdf
2007-03-09 08:07:50 · answer #1 · answered by Aurora 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Somwhere along the lines breasts became sexualized. In tribal areas they just are what they are, baby food. Im sure it also has something to do with Genesis, where Adam and Eve were made to wear clothing in humility after being kicked out of the garden of Eden. Dosent offend me as long as the women are not being exploited, which is not really the case, because they're not ashamed of their bodies.
2007-03-09 06:21:51 · answer #2 · answered by ☺☻☺☻☺☻ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I guess what offends me is the thinking that the human body is indecent, evil, whatever. In some south Pacific island cultures women walk around bare breasted all the time, breasts are not considered erotic. But ankles are. They have to keep their ankles covered at all times. Strange, isn't it? Its all so arbitrary. Why revile the body at all? Its such a miracle, after all, created in God's own image, so what could possibly be offensive about it. Yet we find it so. And the idea of merely not looking seems too complicated.
2007-03-09 06:13:09 · answer #3 · answered by jxt299 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am offended that human bodies have been gendered by society, regardless of sex. Our aversions to bodies are cultural aversions. I am not against the media showing anyone's breasts, whether they belong to males, females, or any other sexes--so long as it is consensual. If those tribes people do not find shame in their bodies and do not mind their tribe being portrayed as they are amongst themselves, again, I don't have a problem with that.
2007-03-09 07:23:37 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
In our society breasts have become sexualized to the point that women are afraid to breast feed their babies in public for fear of a public outcry. This is so discriminatory towards women and their babies. They are told to take them into the ladies room to feed, like a man would like to have his dinner next to a urinal or toilet. Breasts are the anatomical sources that all mammals have to feed their babies and now patriarchy has fallicized them, equating them with sexual organs and something that men use to stimulate their sexual feelings. Good grief.
2007-03-09 06:50:18 · answer #5 · answered by Deirdre O 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmmmm....good question. However, it's more of the way the breasts are shown. If the breasts are shown for sexual pleasure, then it is considered adult. Otherwise, it's considered documentary.
2007-03-09 06:11:34 · answer #6 · answered by nice_boobs 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
These days few are shy about showing breasts (even in family acceptable movies). Now back when I was in grammar school, and we needed to read National Geographics magazines, that was a shock!
2007-03-09 06:14:40 · answer #7 · answered by Holiday Magic 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Americans love **** and a$$, yet are very prudish about anyone but them seeing it. What the hell does it matter? They are part of the human body. Is it REALLY going to matter to anyone in 100 years that Janet Jackson's pasty was seen on TV? Who really cares? Why does someone want their own false sense of morality pushed on someone else?
2007-03-09 06:16:06 · answer #8 · answered by Pete S 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
"Tribal nudity"...as it's termed. I think it demonstrates that "modesty" is a social construct, and that breasts are fetshized to the point of being seen as a sexual organ, in our culture. They are not, of course. Their sole biological function is to feed our offspring.
2007-03-09 06:43:46 · answer #9 · answered by wendy g 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I dunno. All I know is I never jerked off to the National Geographic.
Might have, if they'd provided piles of makeup, garter belts, fishnets and bustiers to their mud hut spitting chewed antelope guts into bamboo-food-tube models.
Kinda scary when you think about how little control you have over anything, ain't it?
2007-03-09 10:25:22 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋