Science Forums 2

[lemit]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought you were just trying to get our attention.

I was going to give you a psychological, mass-cultural reason that involved the development of movies and television and magazines. (The early editions of Life magazine, in the thirties, had bare-breasted women.)

That was my plan, but it's wrong. The early editions of Life had nude women, not just bare-breasted women. But I have another theory, which I can't defend any better than the first.

Female breasts have traditionally been considered erogenous zones while male breasts haven't. I wish female breasts weren't considered erogenous, because I think they are. But if I stay true to culture and not to my own wishes, I doubt they'll be coming out soon.

As for why we show some parts of the body and not others, that's pure tradition. In 15th or 16th Century Europe, bare, bustier-supported breasts were briefly fashionable. The world didn't end; the fashion did. I've known that simple fact for many years, but I've never found out why the fashion changed, in either direction.

But I do hope people will change their outdated notions, although I am hoping for precisely the wrong reasons.

--lemit