Breasts!

embee

dr.bollocko wrote: »

Eh... because they rule?
Duh!

Quite.

They might "rule" if you're a guy, but I'm not, so I can only speak from my own perspective. They're just bags of fat and glands to me - don't see why anyone gets excited about them. I certainly don't get excited when I see men with "moobs" or even with big beefy pectorals from working out - muscles are just functional to me and have certainly never been a turn-on.

dr.bollocko

KIts a wonderful mystery of anatomy and anthropology. I cannot tell you why they are so saught after and fought over and discussed and adored. I wish I could. All I know is they will always be fascinating to men, whether in a society without clothes or with them. I really should write a book about this.

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote: »

The breasts are not offensive in themselves - of course not. They are wonderful and I'm very proud of my girls!
But it's more the idea of page 3 - the fact that it exists in the first place. It's sleazy. And so from the perspective of a middle-aged pervy man. What I like about burlesque is it's far more from a woman's perspective - it's about glamour and extreme femininity. To me, it's like the adult version of dressing up in your mum's clothes, make-up and jewellery when you're a little girl.
I've no doubt many of the page 3 girls are strong, feisty women (Jordan, Samantha Fox, Lindsey Dawn MacKenzie, Kathy Lloyd, Linda Lusardi - there are plenty of them) but some of them have such ditzy, passive expressions on their faces. They just seem too innocent for that sleaziness...

Where do you draw the line between classiness and sleaziness?

In the first place, the word "classy" and the whole concept behind it has to be the biggest load of fabricated bs ever. It's just like trying to paint something, that otherwise might be viewed differently, in a different light for some arbitrary, non-logical reason.

You say burlesque is acceptable and classy, whereas page 3 girls are sleazy and the concept abhorrent. You say burlesque is an expression of femininity and glamour. Why? Because the women are alternatively dressed? pfft...

Page 3 girls and burlesque are only different in "genre", if you will. I don't see how burlesque is any more glamourous, classy or acceptable in your eyes than page 3 models; they both show off the female form, they both are arousing to men. If you want to believe that burlesque is much more acceptable and "classy", then fine, but really it's the equivilant of an alternative music or art-house film snob considering something that's a little more mainstream to be inferior to what they're into, rather than any real logical conclusions you've come to regarding the degradation of women or the acceptability of adult entertainment.

Reku

dr.bollocko wrote: »

KIts a wonderful mystery of anatomy and anthropology. I cannot tell you why they are so saught after and fought over and discussed and adored. I wish I could. All I know is they will always be fascinating to men, whether in a society without clothes or with them. I really should write a book about this.

Probably only because we don't have them and women hide them away as something mysterious and taboo. Because they are only to be unveiled to us when the woman is naked and so probably when sex is on the cards/in action/just finished this may result in a fetishising of them, and as a result they then are seen as a sexual thing. Personally they don't really do anything for me, like embee I tend to dwell far too much on the anatomical analysis of them (bags of fat and glands pretty much sums it up, and who finds the liposuction waste a turn on?) to be overly enamoured, not to say that I ignore them when a partner makes it clear she likes them to be appreciated:p, just that don't find care about the whole big vs. small thing most lads seem to. As long as it's all in proportion who cares???

Would have to agree with JC 2K3 if one form of stripping (assuming the lady in question is in full control of her faculties, i.e. not drunk/stoned, and chooses to do this of her own free will) is sleazy then all forms are, just because one place has better lighting and outfits doesn't somehow make it's business of choice a less distasteful thing if the same thing elsewhere is distasteful.

John Mason

embee wrote: »

Quite.

They might "rule" if you're a guy, but I'm not, so I can only speak from my own perspective. They're just bags of fat and glands to me - don't see why anyone gets excited about them. I certainly don't get excited when I see men with "moobs" or even with big beefy pectorals from working out - muscles are just functional to me and have certainly never been a turn-on.

well, if you describe them like that, they are not going to be a turn on. personally, i love them

neuro-praxis

Breasts are beautiful no doubt about that. And anything beautiful, in my opinion, should not be exploited or commodified. My breasts are not products for which you can get a pay-per-view.

The baring of breasts changes meaning in differing contexts, and that context is important. The women of Papua New Guinea bare their breasts, but that doesn't mean they don't value modesty; it simply means that they express modesty differently. And their culture doesn't particularly view the breasts as sexual objects, although like eyes, legs, hands (or even the flash of an ankle in Muslim cultures!) they can be objects of desire.

I would have no problem baring my breasts breastfeeding, or in a nudist setting, or on a nudist beach. I would have no problem with my granny doing the same. A celebration of womanhood is found in the day-to-day living of life, not in the pages of magazines. I love natural art and paintings of the human body. They are lovingly crafted and not designed for titillation, but for appreciation.

Dita von Tease, Jordan, etc., are commodifying their breasts and bodies for titillation that is worth money. I have no regard for that. It may look empowering but since when is money power?!? This equation of material wealth with power is a bourgeoisie capitalist idea. To me power is something internal and dependant on the colour of my character, not the shape of my body. As the old song goes, it is sad that the whiteness of my teeth is more important than the words that come through them.

My husband loves my body and that is where sexualisation is appropriate. If I want to reveal my body to somebody for sexual purposes, then it shouldn't be coming from a place of insecurity, i.e., my body is not a currency to be used to buy somebody's respect, attention, love or affection. As far as I am concerned, my body is a valuable vehicle for me, and it will stay such even when I am very fat, old and ugly.

Dudess

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Where do you draw the line between classiness and sleaziness?

In the first place, the word "classy" and the whole concept behind it has to be the biggest load of fabricated bs ever. It's just like trying to paint something, that otherwise might be viewed differently, in a different light for some arbitrary, non-logical reason.

You say burlesque is acceptable and classy, whereas page 3 girls are sleazy and the concept abhorrent. You say burlesque is an expression of femininity and glamour. Why? Because the women are alternatively dressed? pfft...

Page 3 girls and burlesque are only different in "genre", if you will. I don't see how burlesque is any more glamourous, classy or acceptable in your eyes than page 3 models; they both show off the female form, they both are arousing to men. If you want to believe that burlesque is much more acceptable and "classy", then fine, but really it's the equivilant of an alternative music or art-house film snob considering something that's a little more mainstream to be inferior to what they're into, rather than any real logical conclusions you've come to regarding the degradation of women or the acceptability of adult entertainment.

Meh, whatever. Your main aim in life is to get personally offended by views that differ to yours. I might be argumentative but I don't get personally offended. Anyway, page 3 IS sleazy and nasty and the ideal of macho, middle-aged slimebuckets. Burlesque stems from a FEMALE idea of sexuality - nothing to do with it being "alternative" or whatever.

neuro-praxis

Dudess wrote: »

Burlesque stems from a FEMALE idea of sexuality - nothing to do with it being "alternative" or whatever.

I do feel the need to point out here that the adjective "female" doesn't denote any moral worth. Just because a woman or women conceive of a notion doesn't improve its value.

Reku

In both instances it is a woman using her body and the known male attraction to it in order to get material compensation, a milder form of prostitution if you will. Even female animals will do this, play up to the male to get at the food he has at the time (males instead tend to just bully the female animals and chase them away from the food if they want to get it), so how is either form better just because it is dressed up in a fancier package?

Dudess

Farohar, in my opinion the context makes a huge difference. But that's just my opinion. Again, page 3, lapdancing clubs: sleazy and nasty.
Burlesque: far less sleazy, more about "cheekiness" and "naughtiness" - tongue-in-cheek stuff. A woman has every right to get her tits out and to be sexy for whatever reason, but on HER terms, not some slimebucket photographer's.

Reku

Dudess wrote: »

Farohar, in my opinion the context makes a huge difference. But that's just my opinion. Again, page 3, lapdancing clubs: sleazy and nasty.
Burlesque: far less sleazy, more about "cheekiness" and "naughtiness" - tongue-in-cheek stuff. A woman has every right to get her tits out and to be sexy for whatever reason, but on HER terms, not some slimebucket photographer's.

But that's just it, the woman is choosing to be a P3 model, so it is on her terms, just on the photographers clock and he/whoever chooses which images get printed. I still do not see any distinction between the two.

Dudess

But she's still complying with a male sexual fantasy. Agreed. Nobody put a gun to her head but how much independent thinking is she really showing?

Reku

Dudess wrote: »

But she's still complying with a male sexual fantasy. Agreed. Nobody put a gun to her head but how much independent thinking is she really showing?

But is the Burlesque type stripper not just there to indulge the male sexual fantasy (so as to actually earn something for it)? And surely they simply learn from the responses of the lads as to what they like so as to maximise their income, whereas the P3 learns from the cameraman's responses what he likes? (sorry but I really am baffled at the distinction)

WindSock

Whether it's page 3 or Burlesque, It's still 'getting them out for cash' no matter what way you (un)dress it. I think thats where the problem of how our bodies are viewed begin.

Amazotheamazing

Just because you find something sleazy, doesn't actually mean it is sleazy Dudess. Perhaps the page 3 girl in question actually enjoys being appreciated by a few hundred thousand "readers" a day? Like I said, it's her choice, you might find it sleazy, she may find it empowering, whereas she might view burlesque as tawdry.

neuro-praxis

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Just because you find something sleazy, doesn't actually mean it is sleazy Dudess. Perhaps the page 3 girl in question actually enjoys being appreciated by a few hundred thousand "readers" a day? Like I said, it's her choice, you might find it sleazy, she may find it empowering, whereas she might view burlesque as tawdry.

Come on, you aren't even trying there!

Morlar

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Come on, you aren't even trying there!

Have to say from my experience of photographing models (up to artistic nude) thats perfectly true. Some models do enjoy working topless for a multitude of reasons.

Just because one woman objects why should the model stop doing something she enjoys/finds beneficial ? or be made to feel that somehow she is doing her sex a dis-service ? Context is important here but declaring one form of female nudity crass and another tasteful is 100% subjective (in the context of p3 vs burlesque) . Its like saying which is the right kind of music - it depends on personal preference.

Just because you cant understand why a person would like one kind doesnt make your choice superior it just makes it your choice.

Likewise they may see your 'enlightened & cultured' preference as being formulaic/cliched/derivative etc.

Ps fwiw there are plenty of males (myself included) who would be of the opinion that burlesque is leaning more toward interesting than p3.

Reku

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Just because you find something sleazy, doesn't actually mean it is sleazy Dudess. Perhaps the page 3 girl in question actually enjoys being appreciated by a few hundred thousand "readers" a day? Like I said, it's her choice, you might find it sleazy, she may find it empowering, whereas she might view burlesque as tawdry.

I remember watching some of that MTV Jodie Marsh thing and there was a scene where a group of girls came up and asked for her autograph, so clearly for some girls being a p3 model is indeed an aspiration (or has she done something more with her life than strip, berate the other model and fake a series about finding a suitor?).

r3nu4l

Amazotheamazing wrote: »

Just because you find something sleazy, doesn't actually mean it is sleazy Dudess. Perhaps the page 3 girl in question actually enjoys being appreciated by a few hundred thousand "readers" a day? Like I said, it's her choice, you might find it sleazy, she may find it empowering, whereas she might view burlesque as tawdry.

neuro-praxis wrote: »

Come on, you aren't even trying there!

farohar wrote: »

I remember watching some of that MTV Jodie Marsh thing and there was a scene where a group of girls came up and asked for her autograph, so clearly for some girls being a p3 model is indeed an aspiration (or has she done something more with her life than strip, berate the other model and fake a series about finding a suitor?).

On the business of women aspiring to be page 3 models...

I used to work with a girl in London who aspired to be a Page 3 model. Was she young, blond and a girl who liked pink? Yes, she was. Was she dumb, ditzy and a bit gullible? No, she was a director of project management on pharmaceutical accounts totalling over £2.3 million in value.

Go figure!

neuro-praxis

Actually what I meant was that if she thought Page 3 was flattering she's hardly gonna find burlesque tawdry!

Quality

Its their breast they can do what they want with them.

It is not as if they are being forced into prostitution.

Women whether being in burlesque or page 3 are getting well bloody paid for getting them out....

If they are comfortable with stripping to show off their bodies that is their business, Fair play to these girls, a lot of effort goes into them looking so good for their shoots, training, dieting and possibly a strict beauty regime.

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote: »

Meh, whatever. Your main aim in life is to get personally offended by views that differ to yours. I might be argumentative but I don't get personally offended.

Lol, first you argue that burlesque is more acceptable than page 3 girls for no valid reason, and now you're arguing that your argumentativeness is more acceptable than my argumentativeness because apparently I get personally offended and you do not, despite there being nothing to indicate this.

Now I must say, I am argumentative and I enjoy being argumentative online, but personally offended? Can't see where you're getting that from.

Dudess wrote: »

Anyway, page 3 IS sleazy and nasty and the ideal of macho, middle-aged slimebuckets. Burlesque stems from a FEMALE idea of sexuality - nothing to do with it being "alternative" or whatever.

I can't see where you're getting this from. Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the sexualisation of women in Burlesque shows was originally an idea concocted by sleazy males at the time? From what I can see, burlesque was a sleazy male idea at the time, and page 3 girls are a sleazy male idea of the present. So the only difference is the time period.

Dudess

You're VERY hostile when you start arguing with someone, even when they've posted in a reasonable fashion. You can voice your opposing point of view and still be pleasant. Fair enough if they post a load of offensive cack - that deserves a hostile reaction, but when a person states their view in a reasoned fashion, I really don't see the need for bolting in and POUNCING on it and resorting to sarcasm. If the person starts getting uppity during the argument, fair enough, but not at the start - THAT'S why you come across as being personally offended. Why such anger?

Anyway, I don't see anything wrong with the breast - but I personally find certain contexts seedy and sleazy and that's just my opinion. Burlesque nowadays IS only about being tongue-in-cheek, not sleazy like lapdancing clubs.

embee

irishbird wrote: »

well, if you describe them like that, they are not going to be a turn on. personally, i love them

Different strokes for different folks, then.

I did say that, after having a baby, breasts have changed in my own mindset. They are just feeders, and there is nothing sexy about your nipples leaking postpartum when you're trying to be intimate with someone.

A Primal Nut

ztoical wrote: »

have cut and pasted this from the pink thread as this was started while I was typing it:

The images of women I find offensive aren't the ones showing them naked or even showing them in a sexual manner but the ones that show them as submissive. For example several months a comic book cover came out with the following image:
Heros for hire original image

It caused up roar and all the top heads at Marvel claimed all the femnazis were getting their knickers in a twist cus the characters are half dressed, have big boobies etc but the actually issue most female readers had was that these were meant to be "superhero" women who were being presented as submissive and weak. The image was remixed by one artist to show the difference
heros for hire remixed cover

The big boobies are still there, the tight clothes but the characters are looking at the camera and come across as sexual but strong women.

Which is more realistic for two people tied up in chains, regardless of whether the first or second. I'd imagine the first. Granted, superheroes aren't meant to be realistic but the second one would still be quite silly.

JC 2K3

Dudess wrote: »

You're VERY hostile when you start arguing with someone, even when they've posted in a reasonable fashion. You can voice your opposing point of view and still be pleasant. Fair enough if they post a load of offensive cack - that deserves a hostile reaction, but when a person states their view in a reasoned fashion, I really don't see the need for bolting in and POUNCING on it and resorting to sarcasm. If the person starts getting uppity during the argument, fair enough, but not at the start - THAT'S why you come across as being personally offended. Why such anger?

It's not really anger, I guess I just come across that way online.

cuckoo

Random thought: could the differing views of Page 3 and burlesque stem from the very different exposure we experience to them?

Page 3 pictures can be used as a tool in some workplaces, etc to make women feel uncomfortable. (i'm not implying that all page 3 fans do this, etc, etc).

Burlesque is something as women we are more likely to see being used as a theme for a photo shoot in the fashion section of a womens' mag.

astrofool

You could argue that both Page 3 and burlesque are in fact taking advantage of men, and loosening them of their monetary worth.

I'm sure some woman, many millions of years ago, put on a top and thought, hey, I might be able to make something of this.

From an aesthetic point of view, they're there to mimic the buttocks when homo sapiens moved to the missionary position, and since then nature has favoured the bigger breasts (look at a dog for what breasts for milk would look like otherwise).

rediguana

rediguana wrote: »

But I think that anyone who is "offended" (whatever that is) by the sight of a bare breast is a moron.

Why? The whole argument of "it's just a piece of flesh......only there for feeding puposes etc" can be countered by saying the same things about the male genitalia. Would you be offended by a bloke whipping it out/walking along a beach with it swinging in the breeze?

After all, it's just a piece of flesh......used for urination etc etc.
(For the record, I agree with you, they are morons....I'm just putting the idea out there. Also, I know you didn't say "it's just a piece of flesh" or anything, but I'm addressing the people that did.)

Baudelaire wrote: »

I might be wrong but from what I get from the thread so far most people are only looking at it from the point of view of fit page 3 girls etc but would the liberal attitude (especially of the male posters) still be the same if this was looked at from the point of view of it being an 86 year old or a 300lb woman?

Short answer, No. We are hardwired (easy now) to pick mates who are young, fertile and with decent genes. Fat, elderly people do not fall into this category, so we are not aroused by/attracted to them as much.

Having said that, I've absolutely no problem with ANYBODY going topless under the right conditions.......i.e. on a beach. Birds (I've a feeling I'm gonna regret using that word) shouldn't feel restricted to only going topless if they've got a great pair of chesticles. (see below).

Also...

Baudelaire wrote: »

..............................Vera Duckward........

thedizzler wrote: »

I don't have particularly good breasts. If I did, I might feel entirely differently. And it is with this attitude I regard others' boobage.

With all due respect, I think this is a downright shame. From a personal POV, they're all the exact same when you get down to it. Big, small, pointy, unevenly shaped/sized....It doesn't matter a rats A$$ as far as I'm concerned. I think it's terrible that you've a hangup about them.

I can kinda understand it, but think it's terrible.

embee wrote: »

They're just bags of fat and glands to me

Why does it not surprise me that you're the mod of the parenting forum

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Where do you draw the line between classiness and sleaziness?

In the first place, the word "classy" and the whole concept behind it has to be the biggest load of fabricated bs ever. It's just like trying to paint something, that otherwise might be viewed differently, in a different light for some arbitrary, non-logical reason.

You say burlesque is acceptable and classy, whereas page 3 girls are sleazy and the concept abhorrent. You say burlesque is an expression of femininity and glamour. Why? Because the women are alternatively dressed? pfft...

Page 3 girls and burlesque are only different in "genre", if you will. I don't see how burlesque is any more glamourous, classy or acceptable in your eyes than page 3 models; they both show off the female form, they both are arousing to men. If you want to believe that burlesque is much more acceptable and "classy", then fine, but really it's the equivilant of an alternative music or art-house film snob considering something that's a little more mainstream to be inferior to what they're into, rather than any real logical conclusions you've come to regarding the degradation of women or the acceptability of adult entertainment.

*slowly stands up and starts clapping hands*

Well said. Mirrors my thoughts on a lot of what Dudess has said perfectly.

Dudess wrote: »

Farohar, in my opinion the context makes a huge difference. But that's just my opinion. Again, page 3, lapdancing clubs: sleazy and nasty.
Burlesque: far less sleazy, more about "cheekiness" and "naughtiness" - tongue-in-cheek stuff. A woman has every right to get her tits out and to be sexy for whatever reason, but on HER terms, not some slimebucket photographer's.

Dudess wrote: »

......not sleazy like lapdancing clubs.

I reckon about 99% of lapdancers would be very, very offended at you calling their line of work sleazy. Also, I reckon 100% of photographers would be outraged at the phrase you've used to describe them. You've a very closed minded approach, imo, to the whole thing.

Dudess

I personally think the culture surrounding lap-dancing and page 3 is sleazy, but that's just my opinion. I certainly don't think little of girls who become lapdancers (I can PROMISE you that - other posters will DEFINITELY back me up!) or page 3 girls.