How much of a boob must be covered

[Fajita Jim]

to be publicly decent?

It seems pretty arbitrary at this point, doesn't it?

[Candyy]

But honestly ,now I am wondering why is it considered indecent 🤔

[xDDD]

The entirety of it. Cover the whole thing in a complex multilayered outfit.

[Sir Dookface McFerretballs]

Escrito originalmente por Fajita Jim:

to be publicly decent?

It seems pretty arbitrary at this point, doesn't it?

The little bumpy bit at the top.

What's it called?

Ah... The cancer!

The cancer should be covered, no one wants to see that part.

[Grimmz]

i don't really care but if you wana set em free, don't blame others when they get thirsty.

as an average simple dude, i see a tit and i get interested, its not my fault, its just gona happen.
🍆💦

[Triple G]

Escrito originalmente por Candyy ♡:

But honestly ,now I am wondering why is it considered indecent 🤔

2,000 years of Christian culture...

Therefore a male breast is fine, but a female breast would need to be hidden, because it´s the apple thingy. Sin and such. Because men can´t handle their instincts. And instead of saying that men are idiots, the better approach is to say that it´s morally incorrect to show boobs - and that doing so would be indecent. Because most boobs don´t look better than those in porn movies or certain magazines to which these people jerk off to - in a morally correct way...

[Morkonan]

Escrito originalmente por Triple G:

Escrito originalmente por Candyy ♡:

But honestly ,now I am wondering why is it considered indecent 🤔

2,000 years of Christian culture...

Therefore a male breast is fine, but a female breast would need to be hidden, because it´s the apple thingy. Sin and such. Because men can´t handle their instincts. And instead of saying that men are idiots, the better approach is to say that it´s morally incorrect to show boobs - and that doing so would be indecent. Because most boobs don´t look better than those in porn movies or certain magazines to which these people jerk off to - in a morally correct way...

This is what happens when someone only considers an opinion based upon their view of religion.

I get it - This is "popular knowledge" and, yes, religiously motivated restrictions and culture that supports them does/has happened.

But... that's a tiny slice of time.

Clothing taboos are one of those things that are very common in human cultures. They're as common as "adornment" behaviors, from tattoos to bone needles to elaborate crowns for Kings. Cultures have clothing/adornment woven into them. All human cultures do, AFAIK, making it as close to a human more as one can point to.

The Ancient Romans have another name... A much more contemporary one given to them by other cultures - "The People of the Toga."

Or, as here: "gens togata—the "people that wear the toga."

https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/culture-magazines/toga

That is a cultural, traditional, clothing, only "allowed" to be worn by true Romans, but something that became popularized later. IIRC, Romans even forced conquered people to "wear the toga." (Or not, memory is fuzzy, but there's at least one treaty that mentioned that.)

Edit: Think of it as being much more culturally important to the Romans than even Bavarian Lederhosen is or Kilts to Scots/Irish. It was "defining" for being Roman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stola

Roman women decided this was cool and further than just being a fad, it became a communicative bit of clothing.

That a very conservative religion would create a "subculture" where sexual signalling was taboo is not unusual in human history, but it's very much popularized by people today when they look back at relatively recent human history seeking to point a finger at something to blame for... something.

/sigh

To sum: Women would still be very likely to wear blouses and generous chesticle coverings no matter if the Puritans or some even more conservative/restrictive religions had been clothing influences in the past. Practical is practical and clothing as personal adornment is very common, lending to a wide variety of expression/signalling.

[Triple G]

Escrito originalmente por Morkonan:

This is what happens when someone only considers an opinion based upon their view of religion.

Nah - i think people would still cover their breasts if it´s e.g. cold in the winter - independent of what the religion says. But the difference is seeing it as stupid, or indecent, or morally incorrect.

Like certain statues were usually very naked in ancient times. Now imagine the Liberty statue being naked, when they even try to cover certain artwork...

And of course other cultures also have some kind of dresscode or cover parts of the body, while usually You don´t see much of the person inside some burka - as it´s basically a walking piece of clothes...

But it´s a different view on sexuality and nude body parts compared to how it was before. And one can bring multiple examples for it being different or it being similar, if it´s about certain isolated details. But this would lead to no end - and it wouldn´t really lead to an answer what is right or what is wrong, but just a comparison about certain view.

And of course it´s not only about certain men - but also about certain women, who think the other one looks more beautiful than them, or that they feel that they would need to do the same. Instead of everyone just dressing like they see fit. But the view on nudity in very religious countries is usually different to the view on it in other countries, even if they have the same cultural background. Like i guess most Europeans would guess that Americans overdo it a bit, as they sometimes handle it like in medieval times, so i guess one can easily draw a connection between being Christian and the view on nudity and sexuality, without "only being based on the own view on a religion".

[volusat]

none, free the boobs

[Grendalcat]

Decent is determined by society. So what does your society say about this?

Personally I am fine with 100% coverage, I've seen enough boobs already.

[WhiteKnight77]

I would say it all depends on the breast. A DD that is drooping towards the waist needs covering. A nicely shaped breast up to a C should be able to breathe.

[Candyy]

Escrito originalmente por Triple G:

Escrito originalmente por Candyy ♡:

But honestly ,now I am wondering why is it considered indecent 🤔

2,000 years of Christian culture...

Therefore a male breast is fine, but a female breast would need to be hidden, because it´s the apple thingy. Sin and such. Because men can´t handle their instincts. And instead of saying that men are idiots, the better approach is to say that it´s morally incorrect to show boobs - and that doing so would be indecent. Because most boobs don´t look better than those in porn movies or certain magazines to which these people jerk off to - in a morally correct way...

The curious thing is that even the girls I know (aprox. my age) who have "male breasts" (you get what I mean here...) still use bra... 🤯

However, we have evolved a lot... Most males definetly can control "their instints" these days...

Is not like all males see a breast and will instantly go for her as long as he sees it...

[Fajita Jim]

Escrito originalmente por Morkonan:

Escrito originalmente por Fajita Jim:

Support is one thing, but especially higher class women would wear fashion revealing the breasts. It came into vogue many times throughout medieval Europe and The Renaissance, even. There was a rush of high-class women around the last days of the French monarchy who rushed to get their portraits done with their breast exposed. I believe this style is called “a la grecque” or “gaulle”. Hold on lemme look...
..

This is over a thousand years later than what I addressed - Women had been covering and or supporting their breasts for over a thousand years. (Edit: Before that time. In total, for well over 3000+ years of human history.)

https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/248309

This is a contemporaneously produced funerary figure of a typically clothed Greek woman of around 300+ BC.

That some women at certain times may have bared their breasts isn't disputed. What is disputed is you implying that it was puritanical religions that forced women to cover their breasts... which is just outrageously, badly, wrong. (When it comes to making the general statement you made, that is.)

And, that you note this might have been some kind of fad among upper-class women... simply points to the fact that they would have had to have normally covered their breasts for it to be so very risque' in the first place.

That puritan ideals or some otherwise extremely conservative form of dress, exist is not disputed.

That you're seeming to insist that women would not have covered their breasts if not forced to do so by puritanical religion is absurd.

Most Native American tribes, especially here in the Cherokee region and the Iroquois Confederacy a bit further north, women (who often went topless) were the ultimate deciders. Men did most of the administration, but women made the decisions like who to ally with, who to go to war with, and so on.

And?

I've often pointed out that there is evidence to suggest female leadership of tribal societies was likely common, but my commentary addresses evidence for that in Europe. It stands to reason that could have been common.

The "switch" to a mostly male-dominated hierarchy is thought to surround the evolution of a smaller society into a larger one and growing need for massed warfare in which the largest gains of prosperity, and protections for basic survival, begin to be more male-centric. Strong warriors and strong, trusted, war leaders more often rise to prominence as such interactions become much more critically important to the survival of the society.

But, this isn't about any of that...


This is about the fact that women wore coverings over their chesticles for many reasons throughout human history. It's not disputed that there are exceptions. What is disputed is that puritanical religions are to "blame" for such a thing. Did religios/culture pressure come into play somewhere, sometime? Sure - Different cultures are different. But, practical sense demonstrates that they are no causal factor relevant to human history.

I'm not disputing that women usually covered their breasts for whatever reason. What I am saying, is that they were not forced to do so, and they often didn't. Yeah, it was pretty much the puritanical religions that said you MUST cover up.

That's all.

[Insomniac Jack]

Depends on how much you're willing to show, if someone's stares make you uncomfortable, it's time to cover up your cleavage.

As an accomplished breast connoisseur, I'm offering my services to help you appraise which clothes fit you personally and just the right amount of skin you should show during various occasions. The first inspection is free!*

*Limited time offer, some conditions apply. Must be 18+.

[BigBallinChester]

Just the nipple, but it also must be held up by a string, the size of the string is up to the wearer

[Pieshaman]

free the nipple!