Arguments about modesty

[Satori]

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

I wish we could ask the women who live in parts of the world where it is customary to go topless. I'm not being sarcastic or contentious; I'd really like to know about this one. You may be right, but I still think our culture fetishizes breasts to an abnormal degree and this makes it hard for us to even imagine breasts as non-sexual.

[Rosarium]

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

They are, but then again, many parts of the human body are which do not need to be covered. It has mostly to do with distribution of nerves.

[Satori]

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

They are, but then again, many parts of the human body are which do not need to be covered. It has mostly to do with distribution of nerves.

Yes, true -- feet and inner arms are richly endowed with nerve endings and very erogoenous for many people.

[JayneK]

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

They are, but then again, many parts of the human body are which do not need to be covered. It has mostly to do with distribution of nerves.

Yes, true -- feet and inner arms are richly endowed with nerve endings and very erogoenous for many people.

In China, feet were considered sexual.  A man could not see a woman's feet until he married her.  I wouldn't be surprised if customs were to turn up about cultures treating inner arms in a sexual way.  It makes sense that parts of the body that are erogenous would be more likely to be sexualized.  If this were true, then sexualization of body parts is not totally arbitrary.

[Satori]

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

They are, but then again, many parts of the human body are which do not need to be covered. It has mostly to do with distribution of nerves.

Yes, true -- feet and inner arms are richly endowed with nerve endings and very erogoenous for many people.

In China, feet were considered sexual.  A man could not see a woman's feet until he married her.  I wouldn't be surprised if customs were to turn up about cultures treating inner arms in a sexual way.  It makes sense that parts of the body that are erogenous would be more likely to be sexualized.  If this were true, then sexualization of body parts is not totally arbitrary.

Then I guess we're back to covering the entire body.

Sometimes I just wish I could wear Middle Eastern style robes and have done with it. No seams! No elastic! No bands! I'm told that they're a good way to keep cool in the heat, and I'm sweltering in these one-hundred-plus-degree summer days.

[Rosarium]

In China, feet were considered sexual.  A man could not see a woman's feet until he married her.  I wouldn't be surprised if customs were to turn up about cultures treating inner arms in a sexual way.  It makes sense that parts of the body that are erogenous would be more likely to be sexualized.  If this were true, then sexualization of body parts is not totally arbitrary.

Yes, bound feet. Which were always covered. Otherwise, they were hideous and reeked.

In Japan, the nape of the neck held special significance. However, an erogoneous zone is not necessary to cover. Looking at them isn't normally the issue except for a few.

[Happyandgrateful]

Uh, I'm from a part of the world where it's customary to go topless (Haiti; France), and I think that your average American trad is extremely neurotic about this particular issue (modesty).

For instance, I'm curious about what trads think about nudes in art, and why nudity was eventually presented as normative in the arts in Catholic nations? How does one explain the physicality of works such as the Cistine chapel?

I'm of the perspective that this hyper-intense focus isn't dealing with what's really at hand (ie: people who are this fixated on their own persons and the bodies of others have deeper issues than modes of dress and modesty)... Something is going on internally, rather than externally...

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

I wish we could ask the women who live in parts of the world where it is customary to go topless. I'm not being sarcastic or contentious; I'd really like to know about this one. You may be right, but I still think our culture fetishizes breasts to an abnormal degree and this makes it hard for us to even imagine breasts as non-sexual.

[Satori]

Uh, I'm from a part of the world where it's customary to go topless (Haiti; France), and I think that your average American trad is extremely neurotic about this particular issue (modesty).

For instance, I'm curious about what trads think about nudes in art, and why nudity was eventually presented as normative in the arts in Catholic nations? How does one explain the physicality of works such as the Cistine chapel?

I'm of the perspective that this hyper-intense focus isn't dealing with what's really at hand (ie: people who are this fixated on their own persons and the bodies of others have deeper issues than modes of dress and modesty)... Something is going on internally, rather than externally...

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

I wish we could ask the women who live in parts of the world where it is customary to go topless. I'm not being sarcastic or contentious; I'd really like to know about this one. You may be right, but I still think our culture fetishizes breasts to an abnormal degree and this makes it hard for us to even imagine breasts as non-sexual.

I am very interested in what you have to say about your perceptions of modesty, H and G, but not your smug psychologizing of Western standards of morality. Our culture is a sick one where the body is concerned, that is true, but what you say about individuals is neither true nor just. People are not to be judged this way for internalizing the standards of the culture in which they are raised.

[Happyandgrateful]

I'm not criticizing the way that some have internalized cultural standards, but that there is an ineffective way of dealing with the effects -- it bothers me because even Jesus described sin as originating from one's self (psychologically, intellect, personality), rather than externals.

This seems very endemic to what happens with a very Puritanical understanding of Catholicism (ie: tradism): everything becomes focused on what is external (in liturgy, dress, social issues, politics) rather than one's individual reconciliation to God, which is the whole purpose of Catholicism, from my perspective.

Seriously, why has no on asked themselves why they are so individually tempted by the human form, to the point of intense anxiety? Is it really sane, also, to never allow one's children to feel the sun on their skin, and send them into the water fully clothed (lest they enjoy any sensation in their body, or provoke others)? Come on.  This is getting ridiculous. 
I'm not interested in being a Baptist (and even they wear swimsuits, now).  Next trads will say we should never drink...

Uh, I'm from a part of the world where it's customary to go topless (Haiti; France), and I think that your average American trad is extremely neurotic about this particular issue (modesty).

For instance, I'm curious about what trads think about nudes in art, and why nudity was eventually presented as normative in the arts in Catholic nations? How does one explain the physicality of works such as the Cistine chapel?

I'm of the perspective that this hyper-intense focus isn't dealing with what's really at hand (ie: people who are this fixated on their own persons and the bodies of others have deeper issues than modes of dress and modesty)... Something is going on internally, rather than externally...

I stand by what I said previously: In a healthy society, I believe breasts would no more be sexualized than a woman's waistline or hands or any other functional, beautiful, feminine part of her body.

From what I have read, I gather that women's breasts are generally an erogenous zone.  I doubt that this would be a result of socialization.  I think it has a physiological basis.  If so, to some extent, the sexualization of breasts comes from nature and the situation is not quite the same as that of hands or waistlines.

I wish we could ask the women who live in parts of the world where it is customary to go topless. I'm not being sarcastic or contentious; I'd really like to know about this one. You may be right, but I still think our culture fetishizes breasts to an abnormal degree and this makes it hard for us to even imagine breasts as non-sexual.

I am very interested in what you have to say about your perceptions of modesty, H and G, but not your smug psychologizing of Western standards of morality. Our culture is a sick one where the body is concerned, that is true, but what you say about individuals is neither true nor just. People are not to be judged this way for internalizing the standards of the culture in which they are raised.

[Satori]

You are mischaracterizing the attitudes expressed here, which cannot be painted with such a broad brush. Our attitudes range from "Avoid the beaches altogether, they are scandalous" to "Any bathing suit commonly accepted today is fine," with most of us falling somewhere in between. There are even at least two posters on this board who claim to go to nude beaches! Yet you seem to think all or at least the majority of us refuse to swim for moral reasons, won't let our children swim, make them go about completely covered no matter the weather, etc. This is far from accurate. And no one here has ever advocated swimming in street clothes, which would be dangerous!

I am Western. Outside of art classes, I have no experience of the female breast being openly displayed without the intent to shock or titillate, although I believe in other cultures it is different. I can imagine things being different, although I doubt I could ever be fully comfortable with this because of my background. Why do you make no effort to understand this culture that you are criticizing, which developed differently from yours because of radically different circumstances? Our view of Catholicism seems to be no more narrow than yours, which sees your comfort zone as the only right or understandable way. Why not share your own cultural understanding of modesty without standing in judgment of us?