[ben_w]

The more I think about it, the weirder becomes the fact that the one and only part of human anatomy that is specifically made to go into a baby’s mouth is a sex symbol.

If it had been men’s nipples, which are otherwise useless, that had been sexualised, that would’ve been much less weird; but it’s fine for me to go around topless and nobody cares.

[thaumasiotes]

It's a pretty standard type of signal. Only females nurse -> nipples are a signal of being female. Females are sexually interesting -> nipples excite sexual interest, because they are indicators of femaleness.

[eyelidlessness]

It would be, but that's not the signal.

Men conflate women's sexuality with child rearing to control women > men insist women cover voluptuous body parts > men exploit women's sexuality with modesty constraint for additional power and control > men decide women's nipples are hidden = modesty, and sexualize women's nipples > nipples somehow mean something different if they're attached to a woman

[thaumasiotes]

Your theory fails to explain why women have breasts.

(Compare monkeys, which don't.)

[Igelau]

If I had to guess, compared to other primates it takes human young too long to be any good for anything. Permanent breasts would make cross-nursing more feasible in the event that a mother died or couldn't produce enough during scarcity.

No sources or background, just throwing darts at a plausible "the ones who didn't died" scenario.

[thaumasiotes]

> Permanent breasts would make cross-nursing more feasible in the event that a mother died or couldn't produce enough during scarcity.

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Most mammals do fine with nipples and no breasts, whether they're nursing or not. And women lactate after giving birth; they can't do it on command.

[ben_w]

On the other hand, it doesn’t seem to be “oh no nudity” if a woman wears a very skimpy bra that only covers their nipples and fully exposes the rest of their breasts.

[thaumasiotes]

Most people do consider that nudity. It's usually done to work around laws, not to "work around" public opinion.

[eyelidlessness]

Men have breasts. Also, my "theory" doesn't need to explain why women have breasts?

[autokad]

to me its no surprise at all.

there are good articles and youtube videos on why woman's boobs are sexy.

the common denominator is that in all societies all boobs are considered sexy. lindybeige's channel suggested it may have to do with some sort of trickery. ie the woman wants to be protected so they are always 'full' unlike other animals.

I think the fact that they are considered sexy across all cultures regardless of shape/size tells us something obvious. they are to show the woman is of mating age.

[ben_w]

I mean specifically the nipples, not the entire boob. It isn’t considered nudity (at least in the places I’ve been) for a woman to expose any part of their breast except the nipple itself. That (plus men’s nipples being so boring nobody even thinks to mention them) is what I find weird.

That does raise one obvious question: is the cultural difference (1) a real difference of sexualisation of body parts, or (2) does the average [†] hetero women look at topless men the same way that the average [†] hereto man looks at topless women, but society as a whole hasn’t noticed because it is male-dominated and not enough men in power ask women?

{As an aside: In the context lindybeige would be an example of argument from authority fallacy; expecting him to be right about comparative global sexuality is like expecting sexplanations to be right about comparing the relative merits of ancient Athenian and Persian armour.

That doesn’t mean he must be wrong (if I said that I world be making the fallacy fallacy), but surely there is a better example to use than him?}

[†] to emphasise: average as in “no I can’t just ask my exes that would be anecdotes”

[leetcrew]

> I mean specifically the nipples, not the entire boob. It isn’t considered nudity (at least in the places I’ve been) for a woman to expose any part of their breast except the nipple itself. That (plus men’s nipples being so boring nobody even thinks to mention them) is what I find weird.

there are a lot of situations where it would be considered inappropriate for a woman to expose most of a breast (though perhaps not nudity, per se). the degree of coverage socially required for a man or a woman varies a lot. like if I wore cargo shorts to work, it would merely be against the dress code. if I wore only a speedo (or a woman wore a bikini), it would be inappropriate.

once you've decided you have to make and enforce rules about nudity, you need to make them unambiguous. "cannot show nipple" is a lot less ambiguous than "most cover most of breast". "must cover entire breast" is also fraught; how do you decide exactly where it begins? if you agree that female breasts are sexual features, it doesn't seem that weird that nipples would be where the line is finally drawn.

just for the record, I don't think the world would end if women could expose their breasts without repercussions.

[op03]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_motivation_and_hormones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory

[xkcd-sucks]

To be fair, basically every body part can be sexy (on an attractive ~= reproductive age person). Hair, feet, thighs, face, eyes, back, etc

[Lio]

I remember reading a Desmond Morris book that put forward the theory that female human breasts developed, unlike those of other animals, to mimic the sexualised female bum and encourage the missionary during sex.

The theory is that this aids with conception.

...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that. ;)

[ben_w]

> ...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that. ;)

Fair enough, I walked right into that one. :P

[saagarjha]

> ...and as for you going topless in public, actually we do care; nobody wants to see that

Citation needed.