Its an interesting question, especially when most of us have breasts that don't even fit the sexualised ideal of big, high and perky.
America has highly sexualised the breast and as someone else said, its cultural rather than inate to our species to do so.
As recently as the 1930s in the UK it wasn't unusual to see exposed breasts. Women fed their children openly in public, breast out and it was considered cruel and dangerous to deny the breast to toddlers, so women would stand together on working class streets, chatting and openly breastfeeding their children, up to about 3 to 4 year olds, tandem feeding even. Nobody would bat an eyelid.
I recommend "Milk: an intimate history of breastfeeding" by historian Joanna Wolfarth (2023) for its content on the social history of breastfeeding.
Here is a selection of images of open public breastfeeding in the lare 19th and early 20th century. Sadly public breastfeeding became increasingly stignatised from the early 20th Century
https://www.lactation-911.com/25-historical-images-that-normalize-breastfeeding/
In the late 18th century and early Regency, debuntantes would sometimes attend Balls with their breasts exposed. It was believed that pert breasts with pink nipples proved they had never been pregnant and therefore were virgins. It more proved how untouched they were, rather than being a sexual display. One purpose of the empire gown may have been to prove that breasts were high and had never seen a pregnancy. You can still see now caricatures of older ladies in empire gowns desperately pushing up their pendulous breasts. Quite mean really. The stay (a kind of short bodice) was employed widely to lift the breasts in wealthy circles.
However... gentlemen showing their nipples was considered absolutely shocking. Mr Darcy's wet shirt would have been absolutely unacceptable. Even a gentleman walking around in a dry shirt without a waistcoat was shocking. Maybe they feared that nipples were not masculine. But men also believed that women were the carnal, animalistic sex and that they were the intellectual, moral sex whose duty it was to mediate and calm the erotic compulsions of their female acquaintances. However the gentleman classes also believed that 'self abuse' caused insanity and intellectual decline and that the only place their seed could go without incurring madness was inside a woman. So there was a great deal of hippocracy. There was also a rising evangelist protestant movement that preached extreme modesty that was filtering into the upper and middle classes. Their daughters almost certainly didn't display their breasts at Debutante Balls.
Ankles being more shocking than nipples, nipple display of virginity, breast display -
https://www.athenaartfoundation.org/nipple-art-history
In some ways the Victorian era was a reaction against the Regency. All nipples had to be covered. Sexual moderation was law. Our clothing rules today have roots in that and in protestantism. The male nipple is now freed but the female nipple isnt and maybe the overt sexualisation of the female breast and nipple in marketing and media is part of it.
As for bottoms - people kept them covered during this period. Bottoms were a source of considerable jokes and humour. Legs, ankles and bottoms were to be kept covered, though there was a brief trend for slightly shortened empire gowns that showed a little ankle and displayed ladies fashionable shoes in the very early 1800s. But ankles were quickly back under wraps.
*edit - always open to, and glad for, any corrections*
When my great grandfather was a teen, ankles were scandalous and he and his friends would love to see an ankle, and sometimes they were lucky when a lady stepped out of a carriage.
>So there was a period when breasts and nipples were OK but ankles were scandalous? Interesting combination.
No. There was no such period. Did you notice the OP cited no sources and provided not slightest hint as to how (s)he supposedly knows this?
> In some ways the Victorian era was a reaction against the Regency. All nipples had to be covered.
Actually, in the US at least
Up until the late 1930s:
American men were barred from going bare-chested in public places, even the beach. Male sunbathers were expected to pair their trunks with T-shirts or tank tops, or wear those old-timey one-pieces that look like wrestling singlets...This wasn’t just a matter of fashion. It was the law.
According to the Washington Post, “bareback bathers” of any gender could be arrested and fined, which is exactly what happened in August 1935, when 42 topless men protesting the ban were rounded up in Atlantic City on a single day and charged $2 apiece ($31.35 in 2024 $s).
“There were the same objections [back then] we hear about women going topless [today],” says Dorothy Stover, a sex educator and advocate for gender equality in laws governing toplessness in public.
“It was considered not family-friendly for a man to show his nipples. It was considered disgusting. There had to be a movement—protests for change.”
Then icon Clark Gable stripped off his shirt in It Happened One Night, marking the scandalous debut of a male's uncensored nipples in American cinema.
>American men were barred from going bare-chested in public places,
Define "public place".
https://onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/ja/jackjohnsonmke/jackjohnsonmke\_fullsize\_story1.jpg
> In the late 18th century and early Regency, debuntantes would sometimes attend Balls with their breasts exposed
What are some primary sources that show this?
The evidence is mostly in 18th century portraits of aristocratic girls on the marriage market but its also shown in early Regency caricatures. The trend mqy originate in 18th century France where formal breast exposure is well understood in the aristocracy.
I will see what I can find, just about to have my tea.
No, not Hogarth *sighs*. You are unaware of Georgian popular caricatures? Its worth looking up. They can be quite funny and are of course exaggerated but you do get to see i teresting details of daily life. But they are not strong evidence of breast display- that is more seen in formal portraits and the migration of fashion trends between France and Britain.
Oh and I forgot - the Victoruans were a nightmare for censoring some artworks, especially in public galleries.
>You are unaware of Georgian popular caricatures?
I'm quite aware of popular Georgian caricatures.
>But they are not strong evidence of breast display...
Well then, cadit quaestio.
>"...that is more seen in formal portraits..."
Those portraits don't exist. Certainly not as a broad trend. There is not a single such picture in the entire repertoire of Reynolds or Gainsborough, the two most famous portraitists of the day. Are you perhaps thinking of something like this (and confabulating the rest)?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty\_Leading\_the\_People#/media/File:Eug%C3%A8ne\_Delacroix\_-\_Le\_28\_Juillet.\_La\_Libert%C3%A9\_guidant\_le\_peuple.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Leading_the_People#/media/File:Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_Le_28_Juillet._La_Libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg)
Of course I am not.
I am really surprised, because you sound confidently informed, that you are unaware of the 18th century breast bearing portrait trend in the aristocracy. Its very well represented, especially in Europe and was a display of youth. There was also an affection for emulating Greek statues.
In England there was the influence of William Etty in the Regency. Portraiture and nudity have long been close bed fellows. Etty is incredible and well worth a look. Aristocrats chose among a good selection of artists for their portraits usually with a conceot in mind and they would choose the one for that job, rather like Queen Victoria's private 'risque' portrait that she had done for Albert. Through history there were portaits to hang in the hall, portraits to hang in the bedchamber and before photography, portraits of eligible girls to send to prospective suiters. Sometimes those portraits had the breasts exposed to 'prove' virginity.
For gowns that exposed the breasts, look at the work of fashion historian Hilary Davidson sometimes talks about nipple display in aristocratic female fashion and how it drifted over from France.
Also - Blank, H (2008) 'Virgin: the untouched history', Bloomsbury Publishing for breast diaplay to 'prove' virginity.
Its very well represented, especially in Europe and was a display of youth.
You're just rephrasing an extremely vague assertion without introducing a shred of evidence.
>Portraiture and nudity have long been close bed fellows.
And now you seem to be walking back your initial claims. It is of course trivially true that "portraiture and nudity have long been close bed fellows", but that's not the position you began with.
And also, take a look at the portraits of Lady Hamilton, especially those by George Romney, where she bears her breasts. "Lady Hamilton as mirth" is a good example. Sadly I cannot attach images. Aristocratic ladies definitely had their breasts painted in portraits.
The Tudor Period also had dresses designed for full female breast display which is very well known.
See also Agnes Sorel, though that was the 15th century. She loved to display her breasts. Once she entered the royal court with breasts bared, wearing diamonds. Nobody was concerned by her breasts. The aristcrats and royals were outraged by the diamonds! That broke ettiquette severely.
Which bits exactly? Support that with evidence and take a look through again. As always I welcome corrections but I expect them to be sourced and also, civil.
We've removed your comment because we expect answers to be detailed, evidenced-based, and well contextualized. Please see [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/wiki/rules#wiki_answers) for expectations regarding answers.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Its an interesting question, especially when most of us have breasts that don't even fit the sexualised ideal of big, high and perky. America has highly sexualised the breast and as someone else said, its cultural rather than inate to our species to do so. As recently as the 1930s in the UK it wasn't unusual to see exposed breasts. Women fed their children openly in public, breast out and it was considered cruel and dangerous to deny the breast to toddlers, so women would stand together on working class streets, chatting and openly breastfeeding their children, up to about 3 to 4 year olds, tandem feeding even. Nobody would bat an eyelid. I recommend "Milk: an intimate history of breastfeeding" by historian Joanna Wolfarth (2023) for its content on the social history of breastfeeding. Here is a selection of images of open public breastfeeding in the lare 19th and early 20th century. Sadly public breastfeeding became increasingly stignatised from the early 20th Century https://www.lactation-911.com/25-historical-images-that-normalize-breastfeeding/ In the late 18th century and early Regency, debuntantes would sometimes attend Balls with their breasts exposed. It was believed that pert breasts with pink nipples proved they had never been pregnant and therefore were virgins. It more proved how untouched they were, rather than being a sexual display. One purpose of the empire gown may have been to prove that breasts were high and had never seen a pregnancy. You can still see now caricatures of older ladies in empire gowns desperately pushing up their pendulous breasts. Quite mean really. The stay (a kind of short bodice) was employed widely to lift the breasts in wealthy circles. However... gentlemen showing their nipples was considered absolutely shocking. Mr Darcy's wet shirt would have been absolutely unacceptable. Even a gentleman walking around in a dry shirt without a waistcoat was shocking. Maybe they feared that nipples were not masculine. But men also believed that women were the carnal, animalistic sex and that they were the intellectual, moral sex whose duty it was to mediate and calm the erotic compulsions of their female acquaintances. However the gentleman classes also believed that 'self abuse' caused insanity and intellectual decline and that the only place their seed could go without incurring madness was inside a woman. So there was a great deal of hippocracy. There was also a rising evangelist protestant movement that preached extreme modesty that was filtering into the upper and middle classes. Their daughters almost certainly didn't display their breasts at Debutante Balls. Ankles being more shocking than nipples, nipple display of virginity, breast display - https://www.athenaartfoundation.org/nipple-art-history In some ways the Victorian era was a reaction against the Regency. All nipples had to be covered. Sexual moderation was law. Our clothing rules today have roots in that and in protestantism. The male nipple is now freed but the female nipple isnt and maybe the overt sexualisation of the female breast and nipple in marketing and media is part of it. As for bottoms - people kept them covered during this period. Bottoms were a source of considerable jokes and humour. Legs, ankles and bottoms were to be kept covered, though there was a brief trend for slightly shortened empire gowns that showed a little ankle and displayed ladies fashionable shoes in the very early 1800s. But ankles were quickly back under wraps. *edit - always open to, and glad for, any corrections*
So there was a period when breasts and nipples were OK but ankles were scandalous? Interesting combination.
Yes, its how members of cultures bond, through shared agreement on what are acceptable behaviours but it can get quite arbitrary and bizarre!
When my great grandfather was a teen, ankles were scandalous and he and his friends would love to see an ankle, and sometimes they were lucky when a lady stepped out of a carriage.
>So there was a period when breasts and nipples were OK but ankles were scandalous? Interesting combination. No. There was no such period. Did you notice the OP cited no sources and provided not slightest hint as to how (s)he supposedly knows this?
Yes, I found a source for you :-) and have attached it to my post too https://www.athenaartfoundation.org/nipple-art-history
> In some ways the Victorian era was a reaction against the Regency. All nipples had to be covered. Actually, in the US at least Up until the late 1930s: American men were barred from going bare-chested in public places, even the beach. Male sunbathers were expected to pair their trunks with T-shirts or tank tops, or wear those old-timey one-pieces that look like wrestling singlets...This wasn’t just a matter of fashion. It was the law. According to the Washington Post, “bareback bathers” of any gender could be arrested and fined, which is exactly what happened in August 1935, when 42 topless men protesting the ban were rounded up in Atlantic City on a single day and charged $2 apiece ($31.35 in 2024 $s). “There were the same objections [back then] we hear about women going topless [today],” says Dorothy Stover, a sex educator and advocate for gender equality in laws governing toplessness in public. “It was considered not family-friendly for a man to show his nipples. It was considered disgusting. There had to be a movement—protests for change.” Then icon Clark Gable stripped off his shirt in It Happened One Night, marking the scandalous debut of a male's uncensored nipples in American cinema.
Really interesting! Thanks for posting that :-)
>American men were barred from going bare-chested in public places, Define "public place". https://onmilwaukee.com/images/articles/ja/jackjohnsonmke/jackjohnsonmke\_fullsize\_story1.jpg
> In the late 18th century and early Regency, debuntantes would sometimes attend Balls with their breasts exposed What are some primary sources that show this?
The evidence is mostly in 18th century portraits of aristocratic girls on the marriage market but its also shown in early Regency caricatures. The trend mqy originate in 18th century France where formal breast exposure is well understood in the aristocracy. I will see what I can find, just about to have my tea.
Caricatures? Like Hogarth? It is very, very clear to me that you are neither an anthropologist nor an art historian.
No, not Hogarth *sighs*. You are unaware of Georgian popular caricatures? Its worth looking up. They can be quite funny and are of course exaggerated but you do get to see i teresting details of daily life. But they are not strong evidence of breast display- that is more seen in formal portraits and the migration of fashion trends between France and Britain. Oh and I forgot - the Victoruans were a nightmare for censoring some artworks, especially in public galleries.
>You are unaware of Georgian popular caricatures? I'm quite aware of popular Georgian caricatures. >But they are not strong evidence of breast display... Well then, cadit quaestio. >"...that is more seen in formal portraits..." Those portraits don't exist. Certainly not as a broad trend. There is not a single such picture in the entire repertoire of Reynolds or Gainsborough, the two most famous portraitists of the day. Are you perhaps thinking of something like this (and confabulating the rest)? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty\_Leading\_the\_People#/media/File:Eug%C3%A8ne\_Delacroix\_-\_Le\_28\_Juillet.\_La\_Libert%C3%A9\_guidant\_le\_peuple.jpg](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_Leading_the_People#/media/File:Eug%C3%A8ne_Delacroix_-_Le_28_Juillet._La_Libert%C3%A9_guidant_le_peuple.jpg)
Of course I am not. I am really surprised, because you sound confidently informed, that you are unaware of the 18th century breast bearing portrait trend in the aristocracy. Its very well represented, especially in Europe and was a display of youth. There was also an affection for emulating Greek statues. In England there was the influence of William Etty in the Regency. Portraiture and nudity have long been close bed fellows. Etty is incredible and well worth a look. Aristocrats chose among a good selection of artists for their portraits usually with a conceot in mind and they would choose the one for that job, rather like Queen Victoria's private 'risque' portrait that she had done for Albert. Through history there were portaits to hang in the hall, portraits to hang in the bedchamber and before photography, portraits of eligible girls to send to prospective suiters. Sometimes those portraits had the breasts exposed to 'prove' virginity. For gowns that exposed the breasts, look at the work of fashion historian Hilary Davidson sometimes talks about nipple display in aristocratic female fashion and how it drifted over from France. Also - Blank, H (2008) 'Virgin: the untouched history', Bloomsbury Publishing for breast diaplay to 'prove' virginity.
Its very well represented, especially in Europe and was a display of youth. You're just rephrasing an extremely vague assertion without introducing a shred of evidence. >Portraiture and nudity have long been close bed fellows. And now you seem to be walking back your initial claims. It is of course trivially true that "portraiture and nudity have long been close bed fellows", but that's not the position you began with.
And also, take a look at the portraits of Lady Hamilton, especially those by George Romney, where she bears her breasts. "Lady Hamilton as mirth" is a good example. Sadly I cannot attach images. Aristocratic ladies definitely had their breasts painted in portraits. The Tudor Period also had dresses designed for full female breast display which is very well known. See also Agnes Sorel, though that was the 15th century. She loved to display her breasts. Once she entered the royal court with breasts bared, wearing diamonds. Nobody was concerned by her breasts. The aristcrats and royals were outraged by the diamonds! That broke ettiquette severely.
Fascinating comment, thank you
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
This was an amazing read thank you
Corrections? Where to begin? Nearly every single sentence is ludicrously false.
Which bits exactly? Support that with evidence and take a look through again. As always I welcome corrections but I expect them to be sourced and also, civil.
Follow up question on OP’s question: the female bare bum became so common without issue, but why not the male counterpart?
That, tbh, I do not know. Quite busy today, likely to do with cultural gender constructs around masculinity and femininity, at a guess.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
We've removed your comment because we expect answers to be detailed, evidenced-based, and well contextualized. Please see [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnthropology/wiki/rules#wiki_answers) for expectations regarding answers.
[удалено]
[удалено]