Was an apology required - Purpose of Female Breasts

[interchange]

Not really sure why you went off on him.

People go off on other people when they hear (experience) something they don't like. The effect is stronger when what was heard was accurate.

 

[mikeymikec]

“What are breasts for?” writes Frith in the extract. “Girls have breasts for two reasons. One is to make milk for babies. The other is to make the girl look grown-up and attractive.

It would be useful to know what specific reasons the publisher has for withdrawing the quote/book, because apologising "for any offence" is a meaningless catch-all term and could easily be applied to some boy's mother complaining that breasts even feature in the book, no matter how the subject is broached.

IMO using the word "girl" is a little odd though when talking about this, because there are a lot of odd ways to read into it. If the author wishes to talk about the function of breasts in a biological context, then stick to scientific wording. Reading the guardian article, IMO there's a lot of bollocks arguments against the wording; yes, some women may not be able to breast feed, some women may have had their breasts removed, some women may have been born without the potential to develop certain physical components of breasts. Is any of that relevant to the intended audience? The book was written for male teenagers, if people can't understand that in many cases it's not possible to provide simplified yet not 100% accurate and complete explanations for how something works , then they've probably not had to teach anything remotely complicated and multi-layered to anyone before. I thought the objectification argument was a load of bollocks as well in this case.

With regard to breasts and sexuality, this is pretty much what I was taught in school as part of mandatory education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sex_characteristic

 

[interchange]

It would be useful to know what specific reasons the publisher has for withdrawing the quote/book, because apologising "for any offence" is a meaningless catch-all term and could easily be applied to some boy's mother complaining that breasts even feature in the book, no matter how the subject is broached.

IMO using the word "girl" is a little odd though when talking about this, because there are a lot of odd ways to read into it. If the author wishes to talk about the function of breasts in a biological context, then stick to scientific wording. Reading the guardian article, IMO there's a lot of bollocks arguments against the wording; yes, some women may not be able to breast feed, some women may have had their breasts removed, some women may have been born without the potential to develop certain physical components of breasts. Is any of that relevant to the intended audience? The book was written for male teenagers, if people can't understand that in many cases it's not possible to provide simplified yet not 100% accurate and complete explanations for how something works , then they've probably not had to teach anything remotely complicated and multi-layered to anyone before. I thought the objectification argument was a load of bollocks as well in this case.

With regard to breasts and sexuality, this is pretty much what I was taught in school as part of mandatory education:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secondary_sex_characteristic

Who knows what the author's motivation for putting it into the book or the words that he used? I would have to read the whole book to offer reasonable speculation. I do think that, given the context of the book intersecting with adolescent sexual development and the intended audience of the book being children who generally identify as boy or girl, that this language may serve very useful purpose.

More basically, sex ed is not very helpful if your intent is to teach kids about sexuality and you instead teach them about biology.

 

[Sunburn74]

I don't see anything with what was said in the book. Essentially he said breasts are sexy and people are upset. I think this is basically a case of over political correctness and American prudishness when it comes to sex and reproduction.

I will say that likely breasts were just breasts and males developed an attraction to them because breasts likely associated/correlated with desirable features in a woman (good health status for example and suitability for child rearing. Women today with small breasts may have to supplement their infants with formula which was not an option 10000 years ago). This is in contrast to the idea that breasts developed specifically as something to be attractive.

 

[zinfamous]

I don't see anything with what was said in the book. Essentially he said breasts are sexy and people are upset. I think this is basically a case of over political correctness and American prudishness when it comes to sex and reproduction.

I will say that likely breasts were just breasts and males developed an attraction to them because breasts likely associated/correlated with desirable features in a woman (good health status for example and suitability for child rearing. Women today with small breasts may have to supplement their infants with formula which was not an option 10000 years ago). This is in contrast to the idea that breasts developed specifically as something to be attractive.

This one doesn't seem to be about typical American prudishness. This was prompted by one of those overzealous insane feminists (what are they--the 3rd wavers?) that is offended by the fact that breasts are sexual structures. We somehow need to start denying our natural inclinations, and our known science, because a minor group of zealots is offended by the thought. It's ridiculous.

I'm all for people being what they want and doing their thing, I'm all for people wanting to achieve a space where they can live a relatively chill life, but offense happens in life. That's just a fact. You are going to be offended at some point. One's inability to cope with relatively benign, general offenses tells me that they are losing the game of life. I'm not talking about direct, targeted insults that would certainly qualify as hateful and bigoted--but this: "the thought that breasts are sexual objects offends me because I refuse to accept biology." Or "because I identify as a cis-gendered quartenary molecule of indeterminate origin. I believe in no gender because I do not believe in covalent bonds" or some ridiculous nonsense like that.

well, fuck the fuck out of that.

 

[werepossum]

No, I don't think it's implicit "in society." I think it's implicit in human beings. Males evolved to be voyeuristic and quick to arouse. Without "sexual objectification of women" the male motivation for sex is minimal. We aren't going to change males to where they suddenly are interested in women only for "what's on the inside." We aren't made that way. Men are aroused mainly through visual stimulation, and this isn't something we need to be taught.

What we should teach is to respect women and their boundaries. Whatever thoughts may be going through your head, there is no excuse for bad behavior toward women.

You want to give someone a hangup? Teach a young man that his being aroused at the sight of a pair of breasts is wrong. Then they can self-flagellate for the rest of their lives.

Anti-sex feminism is traditional sexual morality re-packaged for the modern age, now with a distinctly anti-male cast, as opposed to the traditional version which tended to be anti-female. Either way, the result is the same: sex = bad.

Damned well said, sir.

 

[Bitek]

Let's not pretend it's just guys who love titties.

Women often check each other out, and they can be really harsh and judgemental.

 

[piasabird]

One thing I find funny is that when a celebrity has a baby their first plan of attack is to breast feed the Baby so she can wave her breasts around in front of everyone.

 

[IronWing]

One thing I find funny is that when a celebrity has a baby their first plan of attack is to breast feed the Baby so she can wave her breasts around in front of everyone.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

 

[Ancalagon44]

What this could theoretically lead to is boys ogling breasts in a more aggressive manner and using this text as justification.

I... uh.... what?

I remember looking through art books that my family owned looking for pictures of boobies, tits, breasts and mammary glands. I didn't need a book to tell me that I liked looking at boobs, I just knew that I did.

 

[bshole]

I... uh.... what?

I remember looking through art books that my family owned looking for pictures of boobies, tits, breasts and mammary glands. I didn't need a book to tell me that I liked looking at boobs, I just knew that I did.

I remember looking through the National Geographic looking for pictures of naked native African/indian women. That was the skin magazine of my youth.

 

[dank69]

I... uh.... what?

I remember looking through art books that my family owned looking for pictures of boobies, tits, breasts and mammary glands. I didn't need a book to tell me that I liked looking at boobs, I just knew that I did.

That's great but I didn't say that it would lead to boys ogling breasts, I said it might lead to is boys ogling breasts in a more aggressive manner and using this text as justification.

 

[Ancalagon44]

That's great but I didn't say that it would lead to boys ogling breasts, I said it might lead to is boys ogling breasts in a more aggressive manner and using this text as justification.

How do you ogle breasts in an aggressive fashion? As opposed to regular ogling? What is the difference?

It is just so ridiculous.

"Nancy I was staring at your breasts because this book says they are sexy."

WTF! No, he will stare at breasts because he is a horny teenager and would probably do it with or without any book.

 

[Paratus]

I’m not exactly sure what’s going on in this thread but a couple of comments.

Yes breasts are used to feed babies and most men are biologically primed to find them attractive.

But here’s the thing. We have many biological urges. We also have this thing called “society” and “manners”. They let us live together in relative peace and provides us a strong evolutionary advantage.

So when you are out and about and you see a woman breastfeeding her baby realize she is doing it to take advantage of the biological fact that breastmilk provides all the nutrients a baby requires and not to “wave them around in front of everybody”.

So if you decide to ogle, leer, or aggressively stare, you aren’t doing it to prove militant feminists wrong, you are just being an asshole. The same as if you gave in to other biological urges and decided, in public, to rub one out or take a dump on the floor.

If you still aren’t getting it try to put yourself in their shoes. Imagine year after year every time you go out people are staring at and making comments about your package. This maybe hard to imagine for some of you

Spoiler

You know why

but it really would be irritating to have to live that way.

 

[dank69]

How do you ogle breasts in an aggressive fashion? As opposed to regular ogling? What is the difference?

It is just so ridiculous.

"Nancy I was staring at your breasts because this book says they are sexy."

WTF! No, he will stare at breasts because he is a horny teenager and would probably do it with or without any book.

Aggressive as in staring to the point that she says something and then still staring and then when asked why the excuse is "well I can't help it I am biologically wired to like breasts."

 

[child of wonder]

We have reached a point in our society where offense is a form of currency now and anything, no matter how minor, factual, or unoffensive, will attract whooping brigades of social justice warriors sitting behind their keyboards looking to cash in on it.

The only thing we can do if we want our freedom and dignity to remain intact is to ignore them and NEVER apologize to them because their hunger for attention and lust for fascist rule over others will never be satiated.

 

[dank69]

We have reached a point in our society where offense is a form of currency now and anything, no matter how minor, factual, or unoffensive, will attract whooping brigades of social justice warriors sitting behind their keyboards looking to cash in on it.

The only thing we can do if we want our freedom and dignity to remain intact is to ignore them and NEVER apologize to them because their hunger for attention and lust for fascist rule over others will never be satiated.

And also stop the war on xmas

 

[momeNt]

Even mentioning female attractiveness in a male puberty book is appallingly hetero-normative. It is 2018 folks. Boys shouldn't be forced to read that women have to be attractive at all.

 

[realibrad]

Aggressive as in staring to the point that she says something and then still staring and then when asked why the excuse is "well I can't help it I am biologically wired to like breasts."

Staring is aggressive? So if I were standing 20' away looking at a girl, its aggressive?

 

[momeNt]

Staring is aggressive? So if I were standing 20' away looking at a girl, its aggressive?

awkward, creepy, etc. I think you at the very least have to be verbal in order to be construed as aggressive. Although aggression is transforming it's meaning. With the advent of the term microaggression basically anything that implies a preference towards anything is a microaggression towards the marginalized person. Being in America and not offering milk with tea is a microaggression towards english tea drinkers for example.

 

[realibrad]

awkward, creepy, etc. I think you at the very least have to be verbal in order to be construed as aggressive. Although aggression is transforming it's meaning. With the advent of the term microaggression basically anything that implies a preference towards anything is a microaggression towards the marginalized person. Being in America and not offering milk with tea is a microaggression towards english tea drinkers for example.

Sure, awkward creepy ect, but not aggressive. Aggressive to me implies that the action is the first step toward violence. Awkward in that you don't know what the person is looking at and why, creepy because most would try and hide their actions when it comes to that, but not inherently aggressive.

 

[BigDH01]

Even mentioning female attractiveness in a male puberty book is appallingly hetero-normative.

This is the best line that I've read in a long time.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sure, awkward creepy ect, but not aggressive. Aggressive to me implies that the action is the first step toward violence. Awkward in that you don't know what the person is looking at and why, creepy because most would try and hide their actions when it comes to that, but not inherently aggressive.

A pin heads will look at something according to their own assumed definitions looking for deviations from their expectations. A holistic contextual thinker will try to see what the other person intended by the word they used. Language is malleable an easily influenced by artistic creativity. It can be imprecise, suggestive, allegorical, used loosely or with intentional precision. You try to shoehorn people into a single rut. No matter how skilled you may be at linear narrow minded precision, you won't lose that capacity by adding flexibility and generosity to your thinking. Other people may have linguistic gifts you lack.

This is my way of telling you that the use of the word aggressive as applied to a socially inappropriate fixed gaze allowed me to understand with perfect clarity what he meant. Try looking at things you think people express incorrectly as if you were wrong and look for why what they said is perfectly OK. The advantage to this is that you will irritate people less by being pedantic. You are a good person and so I don't want you to face constant social rejection.

 

[child of wonder]

And also stop the war on xmas

There is no "War on Christmas," only Christians upset that their religion is losing members and its hold on society, leaving it for the better.

 

[dank69]

Staring is aggressive? So if I were standing 20' away looking at a girl, its aggressive?

No you stupid fuck. It becomes aggressive when it is done long enough that she notices and then continues, and then continues even after she has asked it to stop. Both stages are aggressive with the second stage being more aggressive than the first. Why is this so fucking complicated for you? I put all the words in my posts for a reason and you ignore some of them so you can attack that straw man.