What a bare-breasted romp through Central Park can teach us about evolving social attitudes.
When I read this lovely article from 2011 by Jamie Peck about actually exercising her legal freedom to go topless in public, I was reminded of our own Ozy Frantz’s recent post about why this freedom should be not only legal, but socially condoned. (Warning: both links may contain boobs.)
That difference, between legal and condoned, is sharply illustrated in Ms. Peck’s piece:
About an hour into my walk, one of New York’s finest pulled up alongside me in one of those little ticketmobiles they drive.
“Hey!” he yelled.
“Yes, officer?”
“I know the law says you’re allowed to do this or whatever, but there are kids around.”
The word “law” was dripping with contempt. He clearly hated this “law,” and wished he could ticket me.
“Is there a part of the park where kids aren’t allowed?”
“Just use your brain. This isn’t appropriate. I don’t know what you think you’re doing–”
“Hanging out in the park?”
Compare this to Ozy’s take on the subject:
My latest project has been asking people to explain why women can’t take their shirts off in public. Barring circular answers (“it’s obscene!” “it’s just not appropriate”) and irrelevancies (“hubba hubba”), the answers have mostly been in two groups:
1) “Men aren’t attractive the same way women are.”
2) “There are some men who will, you know, take that as an invitation…”
It’s intriguing that the criticism Ms. Peck faced never even made it past the circular answers Ozy describes; folks who have a problem with boobs in public seem, in practice, to get as far as “Obscenity… children… STUFF!” and no farther.
Most encouraging, though, is how little of Ms. Peck’s bare-breasted wandering of Central Park actually did draw criticism. Most people were perfectly okay with it. This may be a sign that acceptance of female toplessness is reaching a tipping point, where women’s bodies are considered more equivalent to those of men, rather than being a frighteningly Othered category. I think most of us will be able to live with that, don’t you?
Photo—No show from Shutterstock
.
I kinda feel like kids, especially younger ones, are the experts on breasts. I mean breasts are there for the babies, right? Breastfed 2 year olds won’t be offended. I’m happy for strides towards de-sexualizing women’s breasts, though too shy myself to do this.
My question is why do women feel the need to expose themselves. I use to think horny old men came up with the bathing suit idea just to get their rocks off but even if they did it seems that women are more than eager to hang it all out. Alot of it comes down to attention seeking behavior. Even on the topless beaches the women seem to enjoy being gawked at. I guess if there was a reason to go nude or topless I could care less but it isn’t fair to the families trying to enjoy a day… Read more »
What our culture has lost in the women equality movement is that men and women are fundamentally different. No matter how we look at it we are different. Does that mean that women should be stay at home cook for the family? No not at all, but it does mean that it is not O.K. for a women to walk around topless. There is a reason that people wear clothing because most people are ashamed to be naked in public, which is part of human nature. Men having shirts off is different than women having their shirts off. A women’s… Read more »
You can’t be so stupid that you aren’t aware that there are primitive societies where people walk around naked. And, obviously, people (homosapiens) walked around naked for far longer than they wore clothes. So how is it human nature to want to wear clothes? You say, “A women’s breasts are incredibly attractive to men” but obviously this is relative to the society you live in and not true of all human society, historical and worldwide. Finally, forcing women to hide them reeks of blaming the victim. You are bothered by seeing something and so someone else has to change. That’s… Read more »
I’d love it if women walked around topless, but then my girlfriend would probably get pissed at me for looking. Of course, she’d probably want to walk around topless too. Go figure.
Have you people ever heard of evolution? When we developed into creatures that stand on two legs the male reproductive organ is still clearly visible but the female reproductive organ is rather hidden (compared to viewing a female four legged creature from behind). So women then developed breasts as an alternative sexual stimulant. A woman walking around topless is basically the same as a man walking around with no pants, not the same as a man walking around with no shirt. I’m not an expert on evolution, but i can see how this makes sense and i like boobs too.… Read more »
I love it when people bring up this argument, when it’s actually a very controversial theory. “So women then developed breasts as an alternative sexual stimulant.” That theory has actually been disputed. By an evolutionary standpoint, it makes no sense. Many of our primate friends don’t have permanent breasts, this is true. That means that when women started evolving breasts – it would have been a TURN OFF. Because the woman would look infertile, because until that point, breast = breastfeeding = “not fertile, don’t waste your sperm on me!” So, goodness knows what the purpose was, but it WASN’T… Read more »
I think the evolutionary theory is that bulbous breasts mimic buttocks as a sexual turn-on to males, not that they mimic swollen-breast-feeding primate mothers.
Actually, you shouldn’t assume that because a body part is shaped a certain way that means that the shape has a purpose. Not every body part has a purpose. Natural selection doesn’t necessarily operate that way. Some characteristics just develop because they develop. Breasts clearly have some biological usefulness in terms of mammary function. But there’s no reason for all the various shapes, sizes, and proportions. There could just as easily have been some other way for female humans to carry milk sacs. I don’t know if someone else mentioned this yet, but there are cultures in the world where… Read more »
If something is seen as sexual by someone… it is sexual.
You can’t validate it or invalidate it. You can argue “why” but it won’t matter. You could argue that it should not be, someday you might even change everyone’s mind. Something else will be found but that is another argument.
If a women wan’t to go topless I am 100% cool with it. But don’t pretend it is not sexy.
status of acceptability of nudity in India: I am Indian male. We have fully naked male monks here called digambar jain monks , who easily publicly wander in society . They goto normal households , and females of the house rever the naked male monks. Now coming to public nudity of females in India, it is restricted culturally. But I personally have no problem with even female public full frontal nudity. BUT IT SHOULD BE CASUAL, as you did it. BEING NUDE AND SEXUALIZING IT – WILL BE BAD. Sometimes few ladies do public breastfeeding without covering up and people… Read more »
Isn’t it weird that no matter how many Breasts any man has seen, and even no matter how many times any man has seen the same Breasts, they are all so fascinatingly beautiful that he can’t help but stare?
If there are guys who can stand to not look, or guys who can look away quickly, they seem rare.
If there is any good reasons for covering Breasts, it is because all of them too beautiful.
For one. It isn’t that some people think it’s ok, it’s that some people don’t. And those people shouldn’t have to be exposed to it just cause you like a breeze on your nipples.
And for two. I like boobs, as a man, sexually. I would like to see many of them. But if I start seeing them everywhere that kind of desexualizes them and then they aren’t as fun. I think sex should be wonderous and great instead of normal and everyday.
“It isn’t that some people think it’s ok, it’s that some people don’t. And those people shouldn’t have to be exposed to it just cause you like a breeze on your nipples.”
Okay, so by the same token, now that people know that women in Central Park may go topless, people who don’t want to be exposed to that can decide to avoid Central Park.
I think many of the commenters here do not understand the issue and came because they saw a glimpse of a bare breast. If you live in the US or Canada (unfortunately takes on too much of US’s bs) we’re raised by a Western culture that sexualizes women’s breasts and judges them based on appearance. Starting from a very young age, children are taught this from society as a whole. It’s hard enough I think to try to instill enough self esteem in girls to have them not be effected by what is way to common in their world. Parents… Read more »
So, bare breasts in Central Park may traumatize children?
Meanwhile, at that exact moment,
less than a mile away,
at the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
100 schoolkids are on a field trip and they all see a grand total of 23 bare breasts, some them larger than life, as part of an enriching educational experience.
Somehow I think the kids in Central Park will get over it. Given what your average kid in NYC might see on the streets on a regular basis, this is laughingly trivial.
I hope people get over making a big deal about each other’s bodies one day. We spend way too much time worrying about stuff that isn’t necessary. As long as you’re hygienic and okay with it I don’t care what shape you are or whether or not I can see your bare breasts/butt/genitalia. IT’S JUST A BODY.
“But the children will see!” is sort of an odd rationalization. Depends on the age of the kid, I guess. You can’t really make that argument for infants. Show infants a bare breast and all they see is lunch.
Breasts are not inherently sexual. The sexuality of breasts is cultural, not biological, and culture can change. 100 years ago, it was considered inappropriate for a woman to show her legs in public.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sex_characteristic
You’ve proved they’re different between genders to a degree, but not that they’re sexual and men’s aren’t. I guess the adam’s apple is sexual too?:P
How do we prove that breasts are sexual or not sexual? The fact of the matter is that society feels that the chests of both men and women are sexual. Yes, men as well. Men’s chests are deeply sexualized. While it is often considered more appropriate for men to show their chests than women in other contexts it is considered more appropriate for women to show their chests. For example in some work environments it would be considered much more egregious and offensive for a man to bare parts of his chest than it would be for a woman where… Read more »
OUR SOCIETY feels this way. It’s not true of every human society that has ever been, or even exists today.
I am not denying that. But I suspect that the “sexualization” of breasts is much more universal than a purely constructivist approach would assert. There is a false dichotomy at work here however. Societies do encode the body with sexuality to varying degrees and we say that is a “constructivist” world view but there is a deeper approach to constructivism that comes from European feminism that questions how we construct the meaning of the symbolic possibilities of embodiment. It is a more fluid and balanced way of approaching the dichotomy of essentialism and anti-essentialism. Can we re-encode the idea that… Read more »
Definition of sexualization in America: If it is deemed sexual. we freak the fuck out.
I suppose that puts things more succinctly. However I think we have to look at things not just in an America vs. some other more enlightened country dichotomy. There is an underlying but unarticulated set of rationales behind our beliefs about sexuality and it is those beliefs and rationales that must be reconsidered. Every culture must figure out for itself the meaning of sexuality and promote those meanings which are the most healthy and the most balanced. In America men are aggressive and expected to be aggressive, other ways of regarding men are often unconsciously not even considered. When we… Read more »
David, facial hair and male-pattern baldness are also secondary sex characteristics. Are they inherently sexual? Should balding and/or bearded men have to go around with bags over their heads?
In certain contexts it is considered more okay for men to show their chest than woman. However I believe it should be noted that in other contexts it is considered far less appropriate for men to show their chests than women. In most work environments it might be considered only mildly inappropriate or not inappropriate at all for women to show a considerable portion of their chests. In many work environments however it is extremely egregious and offensive for men to show too much chest. Double standards are far more complex and contradictory than people often realize. I respect the… Read more »
“where women’s bodies are considered more equivalent to those of men, rather than being a frighteningly Othered category.”
Aside from the use of the trigger word “frightening”, is this what women want? Is this what we all want? to see each other as the same, as equivalent? To disavow any differences whatsoever? Do we really seek an asexual existence, where the sexes don’t exist? Must we take this route to attain equity?
I suppose I should clarify. I have no problems with toplessness being legal. It is here in Ontario, and no issues or complaints (I like breasts, I like seeing breasts)… But the idea of seeing them as no different from men’s, of male and female breasts being equivalent, and that failing to do so is somehow a “frightening” (really?) “othering” (implication that difference is a bad thing, and in this case “frighteningly” bad.), this just takes things too far. equal opportunities, not outcomes.
I personally have zero problem with women being topless anywhere men can. It’s outright discrimination. Hiding breasts is what sexualizes them more than anything else, by creating mystery. My two cents.
“Hiding breasts is what sexualizes them more than anything else”
Again why is it a bad thing that breasts are sexual? Is this because sex is bad?
Actually, mens’ chests are sexual to a lot of women, but guys get to run around all sexy and topless as much as they want. As a bi guy, trust me on this.
I don’t think going topless has enough support to make it possible. For some it may not matter too much. But for others, say those with above average size breasts, there would not be enough support to make it practical.
Can’t tell if making pun on “support” or not
Ditto, I am much much more comfortable in a bra (40D). Also, not thrilled with the idea of sunburned nipples. Also I’m extremely pale and need to avoid the sun for the sake of my skin. Here’s something to think about, ladies. I’m 45. I never spent much time in the sun, so my skin is in good shape. My face looks great for my age (At least I think so!) because I always wore sunscreen on my face. But I often neglected to put sunscreen on the top of my chest. The skin there is probably the most damaged… Read more »
I am generalizing here but I have heard that women being topless isn’t as social taboo in other parts of the world namely Western Europe. I could be incorrect in this assertion. Hopefully we will move from legal to socially condoned to accepted to a social more.
No, you can’t just walk around naked (or topless) in Europe. I was trying to Google it but a few years back there was some advert on a hoarding in France that was banned because it featured nearly topless female models. I think it may have been a Perrier advert and the women were “wearing” only bottle tops. Something like that. The advert caused traffic accidents because it was so distracting. Maybe you could allow only women who are NOT distractingly beautiful to go topless but in that case I think you’d lose a lot of the popular support for… Read more »
I’m kind of free and easy about whatever is defined as ‘sexuality’. And I don’t like anyone walking around with their shirt off. All that sweat and distraction – it’s just not acceptable to bring it all out. Of course, I’m currently wearing a fairly sheer summer dress because its 101 freaking degrees here. Naked or half naked might feel better, but only marginally, and I couldn’t go into the store for my horchata. Cover up, keep it clean. Go have sex in the back yard, under the sprinkler, like sane people.
You’re equating topless with sexuality though, where does “Go have sex in the back yard, under the sprinkler, like sane people.” even remotely come into play with women being topless? I see babies breastfeed, breasts are exposed, where’s the sexuality in that? Where’s the sexuality in a bare breast with no babies attached? If the women are sitting there rubbing them sensually I could see your point but walking around with the girls free is pretty mundane, it’d be interesting for a while to many people but normalization would probably occur and I doubt anyone would bat n eyelid much,… Read more »
Women’s breasts are sexual. I am not sure why as a man that’s difficult to understand. I see women’s breasts every single day and I still find them sexual “normalization would probably occur and I doubt anyone would bat n eyelid much, or if anything it’d be similar to seeing a guy topless” Its normal to see women in tight pants, normal to see them with cleavage. I still find it sexual. I am not sure what normal has to do with anything. That said I don’t know what is so wrong with sex? So what if women’s breasts are… Read more »
What they want to do — or demand is already true — is to social engineer how people feel about the taboo on women’s breasts. And that’s impossible. You can’t just wave a magic wand and say “From now on men won’t get a boner when they see a womans boobs“. Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. That stuff is hard wired by the DNA. Even if wasn’t, you can’t just flip a switch and change a society’s taboos. And if you could…. sure as hell I’d have a million better things to do with that power. Remove the taboo… Read more »
I’d say if anything it may lower the OMGSEXYNESS of it, men in nudist colonies tend to get over their boners at the sight of nudity fairly quick from what I hear. The entire female body can turn a person on, legs, ass, torso, arms, neck, head, face, etc. But what I am saying is that if we saw breasts out all day or even regularly in public I doubt anyone would give a damn. Do you get massive boners when you see the topless of some of the African women on tv (or any other culture that seems to… Read more »
Breasts are a secondary sexual characteristic. That stuff is hard wired by the DNA. Even if wasn’t, you can’t just flip a switch and change a society’s taboos. Yes and no. Yes, female breasts are seen as a secondary sexual characteristic, and that likely comes from prehistoric men viewing women with large breasts as being more fertile. However, it is not hardwired into our DNA to the point that we cannot overlook the sexual characteristic in non-sexual situations. Just being nude is not an invitation to sex. For thousands of years humans went nude apparently without any problem. In some… Read more »
“Just being nude is not an invitation to sex.”
Who said anything of the sort. “Invitation to sex” isn’t what is being discussed, it is the sexuality of breasts. You’re treading a very thin line here with this “invitation to sex” bit, skirting the implication of finding something sexual equivalent to rape
That stuff is hard wired by the DNA. That’s a pretty silly assertion, unless you have some reputable scientific evidence to back it up. There is zero evidence that the sexualization of breasts is “hard wired,” and in fact the large number of cultures that don’t sexualize breasts (or didn’t prior to massive exposure to the western attitude) tend to indicate that culture is the dominant influence on how we see breasts. Yes, female breasts are seen as a secondary sexual characteristic, and that likely comes from prehistoric men viewing women with large breasts as being more fertile. Secondary sexual… Read more »
I don’t think you’re a biologist. At least not one who understands evolutionary biology.
Women are valuable because of their physical beauty. It is attractive, distractive, and SEXY.
Men… no matter how attractive. Are judged mainly by their INTERNAL characteristics… not the outside like women are.
This is the animal kingdom for us homo sapiens.
But of course our thousands of years of EVERYTHING that we’ve been doing is wrong and feminists are going to fix that.
Wow Ahmed, women are valuable BECAUSE of their physical beauty?? That’s all were valuable for, huh? I’ll have you know that men and women are nearly identical in almost every way, aside from a couple small body parts and slight chemical differences. In fact, men and women are far more alike than they are different. The differences you perceive, where women are here for looks, for the entertainment and enjoyment of men, and men are here only for integral characteristics, and their looks are irrelevant, is pure societal conditioning that tells you to regard the sexes in that manor, and… Read more »
Oh come ON. There’s a breath-taking absence of self-awareness and common sense in these threads. It comes down to shutting their eyes tight, sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming out “Not listening! Not listening!” to anyone who tries to explain that two plus two is four. Guess what? Womens breasts are not considered the same as men’s. But of course everyone knows that. The picture at the top of this thread (possibly not chosen by the author) places hands over the woman’s breasts whereas other pictures at TGMP have shown a man topless. Again if you look through… Read more »
I too am curious why the first article covered the nipples. In fact, why are nipples see as so damn sexual n offensive, you can cover the nipples with pasties and be a-ok? Bikinis barely cover the majority of the breast at times and this is ok, but bare boob is somehow bad?
Who gives a shit if boobs are showing, let both go topless. The sight of a boob, no matter how saggy, isn’t going to scar minds. We see animals naked every day but don’t lose our minds over it…
>Again if you look through to the article linked above you will see the author of that article (Jamie Peck) topless but artfully covering her “naughty bits”. Why? Apparently she doesn’t believe her own spin. Apparently it’s OK to go bare in NYC in public but not on her own blog?
The first page is covered as a NSFW buffer, but the post is 4 pages long. You can go look at her nipples on the 2nd/3rd if you’re that interested.
I need to stop reading articles late at night, I missed the page buttons :S ( I also hate multiple short articles). Firefox needs an auto-one-page mode.
Nonsense. If I went up to a woman who was barefoot in the grass and took her picture to put on a foot fetish site that would be inappropriate. Yes men and women’s chests are different. But that’s really the fault of the beholder. It’s not the lady’s fault and she shouldn’t be restricted just because everyone else has a hang up.
The hangup is simply cultural. We as a society have deemed female breasts sacred and sexual, because of their function for sustaining life. It’s hard to break out of a centuries old cultural habit that makes women’s breasts different, because of their role. They’re /not/ just like a man’s chest, because they have an entirely different, and at one point in history vital and important function for the sustenance of life. In some cultures, the neck and shoulders are considered the “sexy bits” and those are kept covered with decorated artworks and mantles. It’s just human nature to act this… Read more »
Breasts only have a vital function IF the woman in question has a child and is breastfeeding, in which case it’s not even sexual under those circumstances. What about women who do not and never wish to have children? Do we classify their breasts differently? It’s not as difficult as you think to break out of old habits, because every “cultural habit” you speak of is literally one generation old, and then one generation before that, and so on, and therefore can be wiped out by a single generation. If we as a society decided “Let’s change something as a… Read more »
You forget that it used to be illegal and shocking for American men to go topless as well. Then we made it legal, and weeks later it stopped being shocking. You have already been socially trained to accept and ignore topless men, so your assertion that women are too different for this to work is social training, nothing more.
The thing I find curious is that American culture can seem to deal with every part of a woman’s breast except the areola and nipple. Remember all the uproar of Janet Jackson 1.5 second breast exposure at the Superbowl? “Our kids saw that” they cried. Just a thought, if children don’t know that breasts have nipples, shouldn’t they?
Seems like a rather exhibitionist experiment, really, what’s the point? Are sports bras or tank tops so bad? No. Frankly, I don’t really want to see half naked guys in the park either.
My view is the same – if its equality everyone wants, I’d rather ban topless men!
I suppose it is because we (men & women) view the breast as a sexual part of the female body. Give it time, and it will cease to be so. Not sure I want it to not be sexual?!?
With respect, the breast IS a sexual part of the body, just like legs hips shoulders can also be (for both men and women). The human body and its shape (a preference which varies person to person) is one of the many many things we are attracted to in one another. Breasts are certainly not PRIMARILY a sexual body part as their first purpose is feeding, but that doesn’t mean their secondary purpose is not sexual. As much as I support women being on par with men in all regards and strongly oppose the over sexualization or objectification of the… Read more »
Not quite. Breasts indicate biological readiness to procreate and are, thus, as evolved traits “sexual” which is distinct from western sexualization of breasts (by making them taboo) and certainly distinct from attractive shoulders.
The entire puritan disdain for body parts, male and female, and fear of nudity needs to go.
I don’t like looking at old fat guys with no tans running around the park either!!
Bras of any type don’t allow the skin under the breast to breathe properly & stifles the lymph nodes. I get overheated frequently. Why shouldn’t I be able to take my top off??