Do you believe that breasts will ever be de-commodified ?

Question

The reason, plainly, that most men in the U.S. will say that breasts are "private parts" or "sexual" is because breasts have been made into commodities. Capitalism likes it this way, of course. Men pay to see "titties," and women pay to have "sexier" "titties."
Can you envision a United States in which women can go top-free without being considered lewd or offensive?

That is a narrow perspective, Paul, that does not get to the crux of the issue. Also, do you really deny that men are the consumers of this commodity?

Jackal and Daniel, you are prime examples of men who objectify. You objectify in several ways-
I. Man is treated as subject and woman as object.
II. Beauty is deemed an objective phenomenon, and not a subjective, inter-cultural one.
III. The female body is looked upon as a mere object.

Indeed Jessie, but breasts in America are integral to the repertoire of sex qua commodity - it's undeniable. This is why European men typically laugh or are confused by the American fascination with "Girls Gone Wild" videos - the prominent elements are exposed breasts and
commodified female bodies being sexual with one another (also why American conservative men will love "lesbians" but decry the gay man)....

I might add, Jessie, that one reason conservative American men would not have paid to see you breastfeed is for the very reason that public breastfeeding can expose the breast in its natural function and beauty, rather than as the sexualized commodity they are used to.

Jeeez. Where are the feminists here!!!???

jon, ideology is no worse than your sort of reductionistic biologism, which places speculation on a silver platter rather than calling it what it is - conjecture, or perhaps even opinion. I do not quibble with the fact that breasts CAN qualify as SECONDARY sexual body parts, but one can argue that feet/ankles can as well, though they are not AS commodified at the expense of women, though they still are - as the intsruments of "beauty" (high heels) tend to be destructive/deleterious to the woman's health.

Offkey, I will make the concession that breasts of course have the capability to turn a man on, just as many other body parts of a woman have this innate capability - but my contention, as you seem to understand, is that female beauty is objectified, and breasts are part of it by being OVER-sexualized here in the U.S........By the way, I wouldn;t care if a man wore underwear in public - actually I am in that rare minority that doesn't care what ANYONE wears or does not wear in public....

Good observation, Koreaguy. Oppression likes to work that way. It likes to make certain segments of society think it's evaporated, only to persist in some new permutatuion.

Answer 1

Part of it, to how I see things, is ingrained into our culture in many ways. Look around the world and at different cultures where different body parts play a role in what is "sexy." The Yanimamo indians(sp? It doesn't look right, but I'm leaving it for now) women are essentially naked to our way of seeing things save for a string around their hips to accentuate them, however, they take great care to keep their legs closed and never step over someone in order to keep their genitalia hidden from view as that is seen as the allure. Their breasts hold little interest to the men. The Dani in New Guinea find the breasts to be boring, but a woman's back is her sexual power and a married woman must keep her back covered at all times when outside of her home.

In the western world, it is her shape that has become the defining characteristic...and the breasts certainly play a big role in that. I don't think that they will be "de-commodified" really, in that it isn't just men that perpetuate the standard. Women do, as well, and not just by buying implants, but by emphasizing cleavage and so forth. And to argue that they only do it because men pay attention becomes a bit of a chicken or the egg argument. It is a cycle, one that I don't see an end to, necessarily, just a shift of focus.

Answer 2

If sex sells? Then, why not? Why not capitalize on your own body parts? Some famous People insure their body. Lord of London insure many famous People's best assets, such as their legs, breast, face, etc.

Breasts will never be de-commodified. The Plastic Surgeons would go out of business if some Women didn't get breast enhancements. The field of Plastic Surgery would go broke if no one wanted to improve or be vain enough to pay for body sculpture(s).

Women do go top free in the United States, in the comfort of their own home and for those who do public displays in a strip club or strip joints and at a nudist colony or beach.

Answer 3

Breasts are big business in the United States.

Guys like to look at them, women are obsessed with them, and many, beyond everyday support, will do anything possible to augment their appearance temporarily or permanently.

You state that men pay to see "titties", women pay to have sexier "titties." True.

You leave out the very important economic part that women get paid (often alot) to show their "titties." A young woman with perfect "titties" with or without an education can make a decent income in her full or spare time by titillating men and some women.

*******************************************************
"Can you envision a United States in which women can go top-free without being considered lewd or offensive?"
*******************************************************
Yes. On nude beaches, and behind closed doors, commercial or private, which is basically how it is now.

If "titties" were demystified, and every single solitary girl from toddler to old woman went publicly topless like U.S. males do, the economic collapse in pornography, surgical augmentations, undergarments, textiles etc... would be in the billions and billions of dollars.

From a society point of view, I think males would be much better behaved, but then what would happen to the law enforcement, judicial, and penal systems? Billions and Billions of dollars more lost, along with tens of thousands of jobs.

"Titties" are a very important commodity. God Bless Americas "titties."

Answer 4

What are you talking about? I don't like capitalism, but you can't blame everything on it. Breasts have always been seen as sexual objects, except when they are full of milk, in which case they represent motherhood (which is why I don't see why women shouldn't breastfeed in public).

However, it is true that society now is putting to much an emphasis on breast, especially in America. It's true that in Europe, although men DO like breasts, they are less obsess with them, all the more because you can see topless girls at plenty of beaches (though young girls, at least in France, tend to do it less and less) and topless girls on billboards and commercials (but it must be noted that those pics are erotic at the most, and not overtly sexual).

So, although I do go topless at the beach (I'm French), there's NO WAY I would go topless in town or walk around in my underwear because breasts and buttocks have always been considered sexual stuff (sorry, it's 5am where I live, can't think of the proper word) and that would be out of place (I don't have the same problem with the beach as it makes more sense if I do it there - it's very pleasurable not to have a bra when swimming). Can you imagine men walking around in their underpants? I'm not talking about trunks, here. I'm talking about briefs, where you could see not only the form of the package, but the buttocks as well.

Answer 5

Even the most micro mastic female considers Her breasts to be something more than mere 'secondary sex organs'. Pulchritudinous mamarian protuberances are used as a yard stick for femininity. Only when Women stop seeing themselves as 'a cleavage with person attached' will They truly be able to come to terms with Their sexuality, and the way in which They have been hoodwinked by the myth of perfection.

Answer 6

Well, if you've noticed, it's not always been breasts that have been considered the sexiest or most attractive parts of the body. Back in the 1500s in Europe, it was high foreheads that was attractive. In the 20s-50s, it was a womans' legs or curves that were highly valued. Even today in other cultures, it's the rear end that's considered most attractive.

So to answer your question, yes, breasts may be de-commodified, but likely some other part of the body will take its place.

Answer 7

Are you fully under the influence of ideological BS, or do you want the real reason?Capitalism is far predated by evolutionary causation. Breasts are secondary sexual characteristics and males find them attractive. All societies have some sexual inhibitions, regardless of social science incoherence here. I doubt the majority of men would find bare breasts offensive; very distracting would be more like it.

You ask. " where are the feminists here "? Are you looking for ideological support for your incoherent concept? You will get it, I am sure. Many on this site put ideology and superficial proximate causation against the truth.

Answer 8

It isn't breasts that is the commodity, it's sex that is. As you said, women pay to have "sexier" t*ts. However, women don't have breast enhancements *just* to make their breasts look better, they do it to make themselves look better as a whole.

Men don't pay just to see boobs. If they did, I could have made a killing charging men to watch me breastfeed my kids. Men pay to see the total package in a sexual situation.

No, women will never be able to go topless as long as breasts are considered sexual. When sex stops being a commodity, then sure. Shirts off!

*~*~*~*~*

Hmmm, but it is still about sex. Conservative American men do adore lesbians, but they'd be bored to tears watching a TV show about lesbians going about their everyday lives. That is, of course, unless the show always ended with a steamy love scene with the lesbian women. It is the "total package" within a sexual situation that what gets men "hot and bothered".

You're right that men wouldn't pay to watch me breastfeed. I treated my breasts in a non-sexual manner when I was doing that. Were I to ditch the kids and play with my boobs, though... That'd be a different story, eh?

You do have me wondering... America is still a rather "young" nation when it comes to its place in world history. Could that, perhaps, make its inhabitants a bit less mature than the rest of the world?

Just a thought.

Answer 9

Hopefully.
I read an article in the paper recently about a female NY artist who was hot and went topless. She got arrested even though she told the cops she knew it was legal. She spent hours in police station and ended up suing them. Turns out she was right and a topless anyone is OK law was passed to remove gender bias of previous laws. She won the lawsuit.

Answer 10

Possibly. Society seems to dictate what is offensive to show. Years ago, breasts were on show all the time and were not considered to be sexual. So in the future, who's to say it wouldn't happen again?