10/25/07
My wife and I attended a small family get-together a few nights ago. As things were wrapping up, I overheard a brief exchange between a relative and his pregnant wife. He was helping her out of her seat, and while he did so she commented to him that her - ahem - "boobs" were aching. This statement offended his staunchly conservative Christian ears, and he retorted with a quiet yet sternly spoken reprimand: "That isn't an appropriate thing to say in mixed company." They left just a moment later.
This interplay bewildered me; what was so inappropriate about her statement? Did he find the word "boobs" morally reprehensible or was it perhaps the subject matter entirely that offended his clean and chaste ears? I would venture to guess that it was probably both a matter of wording and content that bothered him. What is so wrong, though, about saying that a part of you is sore? If I was to say that my shoulders ached no one would be bothered. What is it about those eye-catching geminated protuberances that make the mere mention of their existence taboo?
The breasts, especially around the nipple, are erogenous zones, i.e. parts of the body capable of arousing sexual interest. In a sense, then, they are sexual objects, and to a chaste and prudent person such a subject must be handled delicately if it is to be handled at all (Please forgive the pun). Both men and women may derive pleasure from "chestal" stimulation; however, it's only the female's torso ornamentation that must remain unspoken of in all but the more private conversations. One may conclude, then, that it is not the sexual nature of the organ itself that causes the mouths of decent folk to be firmly sealed on the subject. Besides, breasts are really multi-functional, and frankly, titillation is not what they were primarily designed for. The fact is – and this is a fact that all teenage boys and most grown men would rather ignore – boobs are chiefly purposed for the feeding of those adorable humanesque leeches we call babies. On a side note, how interesting is it that the average American is more grossed out by the idea of a breast leaking milk (a.k.a. lactating) than they are with the concept of jamming a thin piece of metal through the nipple?
Incidentally, breasts also act as great temperature gauges.
My suspicion is that the taboo derives not from the nature of breasts themselves but instead from the tendency of certain members of our population (straight men and religious fundamentalists, mainly) to categorize anything that may cause sensual stimulation as a sexual object. They may do this for a variety of reasons, from the desire to just keep their lives simple and uncomplicated to the fear of the puissance of this basic primal force that smolders within them which causes them to feel the need to eschew anything even remotely related to sex from their lives to a million-billion other options. There is real merit in dissecting the plethora of motives, but that'll be for another day, because I have neither time nor the patience to discuss it now.
I believe that, for whatever reason, it is the over-generalized categorization of the female boob as a sex organ that keeps it out of casual public conversation, at least in mixed company. The assumption seems to be that any mention of breasts within earshot of a man, however innocent or un-sexual the comment, will be taken out of context and the woman herself will be objectified and therefore victimized, in a manner of speaking. This may in large measure be true, if for no other reason than the social conditioning of the male mind, and so it may seem the logical solution to remove boobs from the Tome of Acceptable Subjects. There is a flaw in this, however, and thus it is: men sexualize literally everything, to varying degrees. We're hard-wired to do that. We could be looking at a woman's chest, her toe, a tree or a bowl of plastic fruit – it doesn't matter. It's nothing personal, at least for the most part, but it still happens. Try as we might to ignore it, the fact yet remains that we are animals and one of the most basic urges of all life is to procreate. Our giant wrinkled brains may have greatly complicated the process, but we are still compelled by this instinct. On the bright side, for as much as a man's thoughts may revert to sex we are usually able to push past this and continue about our lives uninterrupted.
Perhaps, then, our focus as a society should be less on the potential or overt sexuality of a person or a thing and more on the multifarious and wondrous aspects that said person or thing possesses. I love breasts. I love almost everything about them. They are beautiful, soft, curvy, womanly, sexy, fascinating, ever-changing and they are an absolutely integral part of our humanity. And I ask: If breasts are so complex, wondrous and valuable, why should we not openly discuss and celebrate them?
My wife and I attended a small family get-together a few nights ago. As things were wrapping up, I overheard a brief exchange between a relative and his pregnant wife. He was helping her out of her seat, and while he did so she commented to him that her - ahem - "boobs" were aching. This statement offended his staunchly conservative Christian ears, and he retorted with a quiet yet sternly spoken reprimand: "That isn't an appropriate thing to say in mixed company." They left just a moment later.
This interplay bewildered me; what was so inappropriate about her statement? Did he find the word "boobs" morally reprehensible or was it perhaps the subject matter entirely that offended his clean and chaste ears? I would venture to guess that it was probably both a matter of wording and content that bothered him. What is so wrong, though, about saying that a part of you is sore? If I was to say that my shoulders ached no one would be bothered. What is it about those eye-catching geminated protuberances that make the mere mention of their existence taboo?
The breasts, especially around the nipple, are erogenous zones, i.e. parts of the body capable of arousing sexual interest. In a sense, then, they are sexual objects, and to a chaste and prudent person such a subject must be handled delicately if it is to be handled at all (Please forgive the pun). Both men and women may derive pleasure from "chestal" stimulation; however, it's only the female's torso ornamentation that must remain unspoken of in all but the more private conversations. One may conclude, then, that it is not the sexual nature of the organ itself that causes the mouths of decent folk to be firmly sealed on the subject. Besides, breasts are really multi-functional, and frankly, titillation is not what they were primarily designed for. The fact is – and this is a fact that all teenage boys and most grown men would rather ignore – boobs are chiefly purposed for the feeding of those adorable humanesque leeches we call babies. On a side note, how interesting is it that the average American is more grossed out by the idea of a breast leaking milk (a.k.a. lactating) than they are with the concept of jamming a thin piece of metal through the nipple?
Incidentally, breasts also act as great temperature gauges.
My suspicion is that the taboo derives not from the nature of breasts themselves but instead from the tendency of certain members of our population (straight men and religious fundamentalists, mainly) to categorize anything that may cause sensual stimulation as a sexual object. They may do this for a variety of reasons, from the desire to just keep their lives simple and uncomplicated to the fear of the puissance of this basic primal force that smolders within them which causes them to feel the need to eschew anything even remotely related to sex from their lives to a million-billion other options. There is real merit in dissecting the plethora of motives, but that'll be for another day, because I have neither time nor the patience to discuss it now.
I believe that, for whatever reason, it is the over-generalized categorization of the female boob as a sex organ that keeps it out of casual public conversation, at least in mixed company. The assumption seems to be that any mention of breasts within earshot of a man, however innocent or un-sexual the comment, will be taken out of context and the woman herself will be objectified and therefore victimized, in a manner of speaking. This may in large measure be true, if for no other reason than the social conditioning of the male mind, and so it may seem the logical solution to remove boobs from the Tome of Acceptable Subjects. There is a flaw in this, however, and thus it is: men sexualize literally everything, to varying degrees. We're hard-wired to do that. We could be looking at a woman's chest, her toe, a tree or a bowl of plastic fruit – it doesn't matter. It's nothing personal, at least for the most part, but it still happens. Try as we might to ignore it, the fact yet remains that we are animals and one of the most basic urges of all life is to procreate. Our giant wrinkled brains may have greatly complicated the process, but we are still compelled by this instinct. On the bright side, for as much as a man's thoughts may revert to sex we are usually able to push past this and continue about our lives uninterrupted.
Perhaps, then, our focus as a society should be less on the potential or overt sexuality of a person or a thing and more on the multifarious and wondrous aspects that said person or thing possesses. I love breasts. I love almost everything about them. They are beautiful, soft, curvy, womanly, sexy, fascinating, ever-changing and they are an absolutely integral part of our humanity. And I ask: If breasts are so complex, wondrous and valuable, why should we not openly discuss and celebrate them?
No comments:
Post a Comment