2023 Author: Katelyn Chandter | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-05-21 13:08
Increased sexuality allowed our ancestors to maintain the population at the proper level.
A year ago, bosom women walked the streets of nine American cities. And also men in bras. Modern Western civilization is not yet rotten enough for such behavior to be considered common. Such antics require a substantial, non-hedonistic motive. And they had such a reason.
The participants of the GoTopless movement were inspired by the 90th anniversary of the 19th amendment to the US Constitution. On August 26, 1920, American women gained the right to vote.
Voiced GoTopless activists have a much broader understanding of gender equality than the suffragists of the early twentieth century. The fight is not over yet. Access to the ballot boxes and the benefits of labor legislation do not save in the sultry summer, when suddenly it itches under the bra or the blouse gets wet. In public places, the oppressed feminine has to endure inconvenience. How long?
After rethinking some of the provisions of the US Constitution, the ideologues of GoTopless came to the conclusion: since men show their naked bodies to the public with impunity, then women by default have the same right. Is it logical? If not, meditate on Sunday's slogan, “Free Your Breasts! Free your mind!"
An uncomplexed, free-thinking individual has nothing to argue against the arguments of the GoTopless activists.
“Both women and men have nipples. But why should only women hide them?"
“If the breasts are obscene, let the men cover them too. Either everyone or nobody."
"Women's breasts are not a sexual object!"
Excuse me?.. What planet are you from?
The GoTopless movement was created by Rael, the founder of the New Age quasi-religion. This former journalist and racer preaches that all humans are of extraterrestrial origin. It turns out that we were designed by alien scientists. Let's admit. But if a woman's breasts were not conceived as a sexual object, why did the big-eyed, noseless heads create it so seductively bulging?
All other mammals, including monkeys, have enough nondescript mammary glands. And for a human cub, large tits are not at all preferable to small ones. These also give enough milk, and it is even more convenient to suck them.
To the famous British zoologist Desmond Morris, the original sexual message of female breasts is clear. In his bestseller The Naked Monkey (1967), the scientist revealed their signal-sexual role. They seem to be calling: “Hey, handsome! Look who's approaching you! I am a female in juice! " And the plumpness of a woman's buttocks must be saying, “Hey, burdock! Look what beauty you are missing! Is it weak to catch up?"
Darwinists have an excellent evidence base.
They do not need to explain the unique sphericity of women's breasts by the aesthetic preferences of alien genetic designers. After all, there are real reasons - upright walking and vulnerability of people as a biological species.
To minimize it, a person has acquired all-season sexual activity.
Increased sexuality allowed our ancestors to maintain the population at the proper level. An additional, well-marked sexual characteristic was simply necessary for them.
And thanks to upright posture, people can maintain their population not only like a dog, but also face to face. The rest of the mammals are not capable of the missionary position, so they do not need front enticements at all.
In general, evolution has so ordered that our primate brothers, except for the wretched asses of girlfriends, have nothing to see. That is why there are almost 7 billion people, and chimpanzees and gorillas are on the verge of extinction.
A little more about evolution
The concept of "boobs is a sex object" is flawed. The weak point is the shameless natives from areas with a hot climate and a lack of civilization. Their initially liberated breasts do not cause excitement among their fellow tribesmen and indirectly prove another concept: "the main thing in boobs is feeding."
Before the colonial expansion of Europeans, topless was the norm for the inhabitants of vast territories. True, not only Christians were involved in the global campaign to dress the conquered Aboriginal women. By the 16th century, Muslims managed to spread their dress code in Africa and Asia, right up to the Indonesian archipelago. But this is of little interest, since Islamic culture is not inherent in the touching confusion of boobs that is characteristic of European civilization.
Three centuries later, Christians completed the conquest of the world, finally settling even on the very distant Pacific islands. At that time, samples of Victorian women's fashion in the degree of eroticism differed little from the burqa. A lightweight tropical cut has been specially developed for Aboriginal women. Mother Hubbard's sundress dress left only her head and hands exposed.
At first, the islanders put on it only before missionaries' visits. The artist Paul Gauguin found this transitional period. But then the dress did work, and the natives reached the next level of moral development. Here is how Arthur Grimble, the colonial administrator of the islands of Kiribati, wrote about it in the middle of the last century:
“The clothes may have come from Eden, but she ruined the Pacific paradise. The dresses, which hid hitherto naked bodies, only contributed to the moral decay of the natives, stimulating in them a vicious curiosity, not previously known."
Two Tahitian women with mango fruits. Paul Gauguin. (1899)
Who knows exactly what place the female bust occupied in the erotic life of the Polynesians before the invasion of the pale-faced? It is quite possible that he was perceived as a sexual object, only weakly expressed. One thing is clear: to be properly aroused, a sexual object must be highly obscene.
Light-skinned mammary glands have always seemed more obscene than others to representatives of European civilization. In puritanical times, photographs of breasted white women could only be obtained through suspicious types, but photographs of native boobs were freely published in scientific publications and colonial journals.
This double standard has survived to this day. American film critic Roger Ebert, in his review of the film Rapa Nui (1994), explained this phenomenon very simply: “… Brown breasts are not as vicious as white ones. It's a sin to stare at a blonde in Playboy while lusting. But watching Polynesian maidens frolic topless in the waves of the surf is educational. It's not sex anymore, it's geography."
Fortunately, this politically incorrect hypocrisy ends. In 2004, Australian authorities banned Aboriginal women from ritually dancing half-naked in city parks. Thus, it is officially recognized that dark-skinned breasts are not inferior to white ones in the degree of obscenity.
The concept of obscenity is rooted in ancient sex taboos. With their help, our distant ancestors tried to control such a mysterious and powerful phenomenon as reproduction. In this context, it is easy to understand why genitals are obscene. It is also not difficult to guess why the so-called civilized man made the mammary glands obscene. You just need to remember how the Polynesians made an evolutionary leap with the help of Hubbard's mother's dress.
At the dawn of civilization, the concept “the main thing in boobs is to feed” prevailed. We know about this from mythological texts and images of the mother goddess in various variations. Both the ancient Diana of Ephesus and the Aztec Mayahual with their appearance unequivocally hint at the true function of the breasts. The first has 16, the second 400. And on none of them you will not see the impudent paw of a lasciviously smiling man. This character eagerly grabbing a boob will appear only in the 17th century in the mundane paintings of Dutch painters.
But the ancient Greeks were already engaged in the explicit eroticization of the mammary glands. The climate of their homeland allows sunbathing almost all year round, but the Hellenic ladies of the classical period did not even allow a neckline.
Wild orgies depicted on ancient ceramics do not allow the ancient Greeks to be suspected of excessive hypocrisy. So the conclusion is obvious: the founders of Western civilization deliberately turned the female breast into an obscene sexual object. That the sweetness of the forbidden fruit may support the libido, crushed by the burden of civilization.
According to medieval legend, the mistress of all troubadours, Eleanor of Aquitaine, once rode her chest through Jerusalem. The symbolism of this escapade does not need to be deciphered. Shaking your boobs in public in the very center of the world religion is not like pulling a shoulder strap from your shoulder on a carpet.
Until the Victorian era, the degree of obscenity in a woman's breasts was kept at a reasonable level. She was never too tall, and a deep neckline rarely went out of fashion. At the beginning of the 19th century, French mamzeli almost completely dumped their milk charms out (not daring to show even their ankles).
This approach competently maintained the balance of two concepts: "boobs are a sexual object" and "the main thing in boobs is feeding."
Unfortunately, modern America is far from such a balance. In June 2007, Facebook began removing photos from the nursing community. Not all, but only the most obscene ones, where areolas and very obscene nipples are visible.
Of course, problems with the contextual perception of boobs are experienced not so much by the leadership of the leading social network as by the American society as a whole. And for a long time.
And again about the ass
During World War I, the US Mint decided to issue a quarter featuring a symbol of freedom and democracy. A sketch by sculptor Hermon A. McNeill was chosen. The naked tits of an antique woman, personifying the main American values, did not embarrass the leadership of the mint.
The people, however, did not understand such symbolism. A year after the release, the quarter was withdrawn from circulation. Insulted by the hypocrisy of the crowd, McNeill did not hide the chest of "freedom" under the beautiful folds. Now he dressed the woman in chain mail up to her throat. The people did not understand that this was sarcasm, and they did not have to withdraw the new version of the coin.
Around the same time, European thinkers gained strength, explaining why Anglo-Saxons, traumatized by puritanism, consider boobs "dirty". According to psychoanalysis, the reason for hostility to corporeality lies in fixation at the anal stage of development. And the fascination with the topic of boobs is explained by fixation at the previous stage, oral. The long-suffering European civilization is simultaneously stricken at both stages. Although in different historical periods, one or the other prevails.
A typical example is America in the 1920s. The suppression of orality then took place in many aspects. First of all, Americans were banned from drinking alcohol. Second, the sadistic, scheduled bottle-feeding system has gained immense popularity, spawning an entire generation of restless psychotraumatics. Thirdly, zero breast size has become fashionable, while women's hairstyle has noticeably shortened. For the first time in the history of European civilization, a lady was required to look like a pederast's dream.
And finally about Pamela
But the Great Depression that broke out quickly returned the white man's longing for the great mother goddess. The accusation leveled against Franklin D. Roosevelt by anal conservatives for his social policies is characteristic: "The President wants to make the government a cash cow with a hundred million breasts."
Since then, Americans have been suffering from pronounced sis addiction. The sexy tight-fitting sweaters of very convex film actresses of the 40s were replaced by revealing dresses of luxurious divas of the 50s - Marilyn Monroe, Jane Russell, Jane Mansfield.
The latter perfectly mastered the art of "accidentally" showing her treasures to the public. Her constantly dropping tits prepared Americans for the infantile-hedonistic orality of the crazy 60s.
But Jane Mansfield could be lynched these days. In 2004, this nearly happened to Janet Jackson showing her right chest while performing at a soccer game.
Is it a new anal period? Unlikely. The boob addiction continues, just more neurotic than before.
Americans still regard Pamela Anderson as sexy, the silicone likeness of the naturally chic Jane Mansfield. And the demonstrations of the chested activists still attract the attention of male passers-by.
True, the participants of the GoTopless campaign covered up their nipples with rubber analogs or colored tape. But who knows, maybe it will soon become fashionable and give sophisticated humanity a new evolutionary impetus.