!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
Once the Abrahamic Religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) became huge. It's all about "Women are evil sluts who do nothing but sin and tempt the good and pious men", it's pretty evident in modern societies that have large populations of people that follow these religions.
The correct answer has three upvotes, and Victorian era rises to the top. Well, at least you have 4 upvotes now.
I feel like it has to be much more complicated than this. Sure they influenced the culture but a lot of polytheistic cultures seemed to also have coverings
Victorian England is responsible for most of our annoying modesty rules. As to why... I'm not certain, they were just fucking prudes.
Women have been covering their breasts for modesty for ~5,000 years, not 150. Used as a means of identifying which women are “respectable” and which women are “publicly available” to men, upper class women in ancient Mesopotamia were made to wear veils that were wrapped loosely over their hair and fell to their waists, but poorer women were not allowed, and faced harsh punishments if they dared to wear them.
When your wealth system is nothing but cruel unfairness you always need somewhere else to point a finger, that somewhere was boobs.
It’s a conspiracy by Big Dairy to keep us udderly focused.
My Holstein brings all the boys to the yard...
Okay I'm gonna post something like an actual answer, which I feel like will get downvoted bc y'all are men but whatever.
Women's bodies are sexualized, plain and simple. Breasts perform the biological function of nourishing a baby, but that has seemingly become secondary to their entity as an object of sexual desire, namely by men. So you have 3 factors - breasts are seen as sexual in nature, sex is considered taboo in many western cultures, and men are generally the ones who hold positions of power. Put that all together and you have laws and cultural attitudes that require that breasts be concealed in public.
Men's nipples are completely fine though. Men can walk around shirtless (in many places, perhaps not "most" but 100% more than can be said for a woman) and no one bats an eye, but the female nipple is considered obscene because it is seen as sexual.
All this "they don't" "not in Europe" "yeah aren't you disappointed" "hurr durr udders" fuckouttahere with that dismissive bullshit lmao
I think OP knows all this and agrees with it as well. I think they were asking historically when the shift happened.
Breasts don't need to be large throughout adult life for the purpose of nursing. Look at the non-human apes and other primates. The hypothesis that large adult human breasts outside of nursing evolved due to sexual selection is completely reasonable.
Sexual selection is not inherently good or bad. It just is. If that theory is correct, then breasts which are (on many women) large before and between nursing stages came about due to sexual attraction. There was selection for women with larger breasts and selection for men attracted to them. It's not the responsibility or fault of either sex, and the genes increasing both the attraction in males and the breast size in females are passed through both sexes. Fathers and mothers who have daughters with larger breasts and sons attracted to them will have more grandkids.
None of this comes with the baggage of how we should set up our society. We can suppress sexual activity in public, demand consent, be free to cover or not cover regardless of how it was we got to where we are today.
Isn't the breastfeeding function part of the reason breasts are sexualized? In other words - biologically males seek a female that can provide for her offspring so there'd be an evolutionary advantage for women who can at least appear to be able to do so.
Since we are all going; here is my take. Breasts were always sexual in nature. For most species they signal fertility and what part of the cycle the individual is in at the moment. At some point human females evolved to have perpetually inflated breasts. There are a few different theories as to why that happened, but it is beside the point for this discussion. So considering they were evolved to attract or dissuade males, I say they certainly have a sexual function. In addition to this, breasts play a big part in sexual pleasure for the wearer.
Now consider people pairing up in monogamous couples. The male suspects that other males might be motivated to pursue his mate by the visage of his mates nice boobies. He asks his mate to cover them up so he feels more safe in his position. Now hundreds of years pass, and what do you know, it is in grained in the cultures. It's not really too bad for the women, so they have lived with it, for the sake of peace. Sometimes it is even convenient to be covered. For example in cold weather. I bet there is a correlation between climate and a cultures willingness to have boobs in the open.
Tribes have not only hidden their populations breasts, they have been known to hide their women all together, so the neighbouring tribes don't steal them. I feel that this is a bit similar. Put a gold bar in a glass display long enough, and someone will try to take it. Everything carries risk. If your society isn't good at maintaining law, then it's a bad idea to display the gold bar. In some places it might not be an issue at all. All women could go around topless as well, but the risk that they are approached by an aspiring male will probably be slightly increased.
So why do it now, in my amazing, functioning, egalitarian and lawful country? It is down to history and people being comfortable with what we have always done.
My humble opinion is that we abolish any law that prevent any boob owner from showing them anywhere. But I'm lazy, so I won't start a revolution over it.
I'm in physical pain reading this
Why? You're disappointed with the explanation? Disagree with it? Or you don't like its somewhat informal tone? I thought it was well written, enjoyed the information / humor, and can respect the explanation.
Literally the only thing this comment manages to say is that its writer views women as objects, that women exist a status symbol for men, like bro he literally compares women to a gold bar in a glass box what the fuck do you mean hahahahaha. The most discouraging part out of all of this is that people here are agreeing with it.
He's saying that HISTORICALLY women were viewed as such. That's his guess at what logic prehistoric humans went through, not his own.
Are we really out here ignoring the fact that mans said that breasts were evolved for men??? Like come on, don't make excuses for this guy
Humans have evolved, and sexual selection is a big part of evolution in sexual species. Whether his hypothesis is correct or not, it's not offensive to speculate how things got to where they are now.
You also seem to be making the naturalism fallacy. Just because things are or were a certain way in nature doesn't mean they ought to be that way in human society.
breasts were evolved for men???
That's not what they said though
Evolution doesn't have a preconceived goal it goes for. There can be pressures of all different kinds. I did not intend to convey that sexual pressure was the sole factor on the evolution of breasts. Clearly they have other functions. I only make the observation that it is a sexual signal for males in the vast majority of mammals. I believe humans are the only mammal with breasts that doesn't shrink when they are ready, as it were. But I am a proponent of the hypothesis that it was evolved as a trait of sexual secrecy, to confuse males, so the female can attract the favour of more males.
It's alright to disagree with the premise that there were sexual pressure on the evolution of breasts. You would probably be in the minority in the scientific community on that one though.
For the record; I fancy myself an egalitarianist. I believe in women's rights. I do not believe slavery is good for any kind of society. I really believe males and females are very similar. Small differences in our physiological makeup. That is all.
Sexual selection pressure is massive in evolutionary systems. You're forgetting that fitness is an indirect result of what is ultimately sexual selection pressure. A lot of people think it's fitness first, sex second, but it's actually the other way around, sexual selection plays a larger part, and is supposed to imply fitness, but doesn't always. Without sex there is no reproduction, and therefore no mutations. Anyways, just remember, in evolutionary systems, they are not directly selecting for traits, they are selecting traits through the abstraction of sex and sexual selection. Sex is king here. IDK it's weird but it is what it is.
Ah yes, I remember how the birds of paradise evolved such complicated dance routines and brilliant colours for the sole purpose of self expression. Or the brilliant peacock that evolved a huge unwieldy display just to feel good about themselves
Hysterika, i think that may have hit the nail
I'm sorry it came of that way. It was not my intention. The gold bar part is perhaps a bit unfortunate. I was trying to illustrate and emphasise to the reader that doing anything carries a risk and that people of different regions and cultures have made different choices to manage those perceived risks based on their circumstances.
I believe people, more often than not, make choices out of practicality. Morals, religion, politics, fads, all come and go. "Hey, wife, those guys are staring, I know it's not convenient, but can you cover up" has probably been said by males partners pretty consistently over the years.
The word steal might have been a bad choice too, now that I think about it. Perhaps kidnap would have also worked.
But this ignores all the cultures where women's breasts are not considered sexually. I lived in Africa, and it was actually a big adjustment for me, even though the local people's attitudes were changing due to Western media. 25 years of Canadian upbringing made it hard not to look when women or teenage girls took off their shirts. But that was my problem, not theirs.
And not just Africa. In rural Japan japan, before WWII, women were often topless.
I am not arguing that this happens everywhere, in the same way and is then set in stone forever. People in different places and times had different circumstances. Hence, they could have chosen to handled things differently. Cultural norms can also sometimes change over night. Look at the sexual revolution of the 60-70s for example.
I was trying to answer the question where this norm comes from. Not why this norm isn't universal.
It seems obvious to me that a culture that have normalized breasts in everyday life, would also consider them less sexual in nature.
Where?
There's more than a few countries even in Western Europe where women can go topless in public.
Depending on where you're talking about, there's lots of different answers including "they don't"
Can but it's still not normal or typical.
In Spain, nudity is a constitutionally guaranteed human right - that's a stark difference compared to America and voyeuristic spying is considered a crime entirely on the peeper and not on the person having their privacy violated.
Right, but it's not normal outside of beaches.
You're correct, you won't find topless women wandering around city streets - but a woman may feel comfortable hanging up their laundry topless or being topless in their home near windows. In some parts of the US and Canada you can actually be fines for casual nudity if some asshole judge deemed it exhibitionist.
It's actually becoming less normal in a lot of places since every creep has a smartphone with a camera these days. Women have found their pictures or filmclips back on the internet, which was not the reason for going topless.
Also, it's been allowed in the last 50 - 60 years for most countries, not so much before.
Women can go topless in public in most of Canada and the US too, they just don't most of the time.
In North America you can expect verbal or physical assault for going topless. There's very much a culture of "She was asking for it".
Once all the boomers die, y'all can hang out topless wherever you want. Everybody else is cool with it.
Even though it's just a text post, I can hear your disappointment.
men realized that women can cast spells with those thing, so we forced you to hide them
I blame the uptight protestants who needed a severe moral code or something.
Also, for a time period, in some tropical places bare breasts supposedly meant a prostitute was working.
I think that in Korea, up to the early 20th century, women of age were topless to show they weren't married. Covered up meant they were no longer free? Need a source on it for specifics if anyone cares to search.
And it was in an African tribe i think that the opposite happened. Bare breasts meant a mother that was actively breastfeeding.
It's all foggy memories though, so accuracy is low.
AS A MAN I KNOW it's when I got chubby and because I don't like air on my nipples.
Maybe when wars started over them?