Why do girls have to cover up their breasts?

OK I'm 16 and have thought through this a lot but never found an answer. why do girls always cover there breasts,boobs or what ever you prefer to call them when guys have them to. I know girls breast feed but its been proven guys can to so I don't see the big deal there. the only difference I see is that for girls there breasts grow out away from the body as they get older but they are still the same as guys.

cn someone please help answer this


Most Helpful Girl

  • Women don't show their breasts because breasts are usually used in sexual foreplay. In our culture we pride ourselves on "equality" and "women's rights." If I walked around topless without a shirt at the company luncheon-do you think my colleagues would look at me the same way? Probably not.

    The women in national geographic don't hold the social same status as Western women can hold. They usually are subservient to the men and are just there to reproduce and be a man's companion. A lot of those tribes on national geographic have more than one wife at a time.

    In short; if man and women are going to have "equal rights" a woman cannot be looked upon as solely a sexual objects. With her breasts jiggling around- a man is always going to sexualize them even if they deny it. Men's breasts are not used as sexual objects (maybe the nipple, but not the actual breast) Women's are. That's why

    • Equality in our society is a fairly recent phenomenon, yet women have always been expected to cover up. In fact, as women have gained more rights, it's become acceptable for them to reveal more; in the past they weren't even allowed to wear shirts if the sleeves came above their elbows.

    • Show All
    • a woman's neck and shoulders too are used in sexual oreplay.

      A man is always going to sexualize breasts because he's NOT used to seeing them. On a naturist beach men don't look any more at breasts than they look at belly buttons. In Afghanistan, hair isn't shown, thus it becomes sexual to show it. During the 19th century, ankles and legs weren't shown, thus an ankle or a leg would be sexual.

    • Cool-Relax , women weren't expected to cover up in Classic Greece or Rome or during the Middle Ages or during Renaissance. Covering up started during the 18th century , became 'normal' during the Victorian period.

What Girls Said 10

  • women have to be modest

  • It's completely cultural.

    In some cultures women can show their breasts. As older men who grew up when porn wasn't popular found out when they got hold of National Geographic. In places like India, women wear Sari's where the top shows some of a woman's midriff but her most places consider a woman showing her midriff inappropriate. Here women can show their hair but in some cultures they have to cover it. In some cultures women have to wear burqa's where their entire body, even their eyes, are covered and can get in serious legal trouble if even their arm shows.

    It depends on how sexual the culture is and what that culture values as sexually arousing features, that determines what or how much a woman covers.

  • Who is disagreeing with these answers? It is completely cultural as the other ladies have commented.

    • People disagreeing are those girls who hide there boobs and think its wrong to show off your sexuality even if that in your culture its not taboo.

  • Those are the rules of our society. In other cultures, it's the norm for women to have their breasts uncovered. We just function differently.

    • What's with the down arrows? Try picking up a book sometime; it's basic anthropology/sociology that cultures function differently.

    • The down arrors are stupid people

    • I agree with you it was just the way people where brought up and the culture

  • While I understand and agree with the suggestions that the reasoning is sexual objectification or cultural etiquette, I think there is a more fundamental reason: Insecurity for one's body.

    In many parts of the world, to one degree or another, people are defined by superficial standards; what they can do with their bodies. This is further exacerbated when such definitions are diminished to the function of body parts that are exclusive to one or the other sex.

    With such a single focus, the default collective expectations for an individual of that sex's life's accomplishments become unfairly restricted. As a result, those parts are simultaneously seen as sacred and shameful. Conceivably one could also say this is compounded by the egotistic human drive to divorce ourselves from our primal evolutionary roots--concealing parts that are primarily used for the satisfaction of primal urges (intercourse, nursing, waste release). Our mouths might also be covered if we didn't rely on them to speak, as we'd be reminded of our need to eat.

    Regardless, as with so many other things in life, a thrill is felt when revealing things that are taboo, or otherwise hidden. The scope and personal nature of which, in this case, transforms what would objectively be seen as innocuous body parts into veritable aphrodisiacs.

    So, in the end, what I feel we're left with is akin to the classic Chicken vs. Egg quandary...
    Did the fashion lead to the indecency... or did the indecency lead to the fashion?

    • There's also other theories too. Freud would say we have all have an instinctual sexual attraction towards the parent of the opposite sex, or any characteristics that remind us of those parents... and a natural disregard/competitiveness toward the same sex parent (and traits thereof)

      Others might claim that men are attracted to breasts because of some unresolved natal yearning for nourishment. (or maybe something similar on an emotional level)

      Still others would suggest (as I was recently told), that it's a result of humans walking upright.
      (our evolutionary ancestors were quadrupeds... males saw that females were in heat by viewing their rears... which were at eye-level. after becoming bipedal, males' eye-level shifted upward. the visual similarity between cleavage and one's rear offers an alternative focal point... or so the theory went)

  • Like jtj25m said women aren't going to get really aroused by seeing a guys chest. Society has made us believe that a woman's breast are to be looked as purely as a food source for babies, there fore desirable to those who can not have them.

  • It is not ok to leave them to be exposed in western, middle Eastern or Asian society, because boobs are only allowed to be seen in copulation sessions. In tribal africa, its a whole different story and people aren't caught up with a pair of boobs, its just part of normal daily life to be half naked

  • I know it's silly isn't it

  • First of all men cannot breastfeed. You need to go to school and learn something. Women breast feed because throughout puberty we develop milk ducts and milk secreting glands. And, ONLY in pregnancy, are those glands triggered. Seeing as men never go through female puberty and never experience pregnancy, they cannot breastfeed. Sorry to burst your bubble!
    And, breasts are sexualized, and so exposing them even when breastfeeding is a taboo, meaning its not accepted socially. Breasts are considered a sexual body part. Men regard them as sexual body parts as well. Girls walk around with their chests covered and men stare. If we walked around bare chested, it would get a lot worse.


What Guys Said 8

  • During the 17th century, only prostitutes covered their breasts at all times in England. Rich women didn't bother to hide them.

    When formula milk was invented, many middle class women stopped breastfeeding. (anyhow, for centuries, rich women used poor mothers to breastfeed their own rich kids. The Englich word 'nurse' (wet nurse) stems from the French 'nourrice' <-nourir= to feed ) Poor women didn't because it was too expensive.
    Middle class women didn't want to be associated with the poor. Thus they started hiding their breasts at all time and educating their daughters to hide them too.

    • @TheOneTurv Breasts became (over) sexualized.
      During the 19th century, women wouldn't show their legs. Female (and even piano) legs were sexual icons.

  • I don't know your not talking about why they wear clothes right? Girls are just weird one time I was at a strip club and the girl was on stage dancing now she was topless and my friend went to go tip her and she said that he looked familiar and asked where he lived anyway she was mistaken but while she asked him if they were neighbors she actually took her hands and covered her breasts, and this is a stripper. I will never understand that as long as I live so to answer your question I don't have a clue.

    • She covered up because she wanted your friend to look at her as a person-not just a set of breasts cause she thought she knew him. What's so weird about that? Breasts are distracting, especially to men lol-so if she wanted to have a serious conversation, it makes perfect sense that she would cover her breasts

  • Women tend to not get an uncomfortable and obvious, sometimes embarrassing hard on when they see a mans bare chest.

  • Breast is a sexual icon. Like a di*k ya know? why do you think we don't usually go walking around naked?

  • I've never understood this either.

    Breast alone do not grab attention from most males. If they did, porn would not consist of showing the entire upper body, or more. They would just take pictures of perfect breast, and all males would be happy.

    Just as I'm sure the majority of straight or bi females are attracted to the entire torso of a male.

    It is the entire package that gets the attention of both males and females. You can't slap on a pair of perfect breast on a 100 year old women and expect every straight or bi man to start drooling.

    I think if you are going to force people to cover their breast because a very low percent of males get turn on by breast alone, then you will have to cover feet, lips, hands, ears and any other fetish that some men have.

    Our culture actions doesn't seem to have a problem showing female breast.

    eg. link




    Clearly in our culture women are encourage to show their breast. It is the female nipples that seem to be taboo.

    The double standard will probably fade in the next few generations, just as many other things that were taboo years ago...

  • It's pretty easy, they are considered sexual icons, just like a penis or vagina. Male pecks have not and never will be thought of in this way.

    • Female breasts became and are considered sexual icons because they're always covered. The purpose of breasts is to feed sucklings. Not to enjoy men or women.

  • it is considered inappropriate to society for any sexual organs to be showing that's like asking why do people wear clothes

  • why? because through out the majority of humanity, people realize that breasts and nipples have sharp sensibility and closely associate with sex and reproduction. Reproduction is complete only when the next generation of life is capable of reproducing its next generation. Thus, breasts and breast-feeding infants are consequentially a part of reproduction, whose level of reproductive importance is matching that of other reproductive organs. Stimulation of one of such organs stimulates others because they are for reproduction. For example, stimulation of breasts leads to secretion of fluid in vagina, which is apparently for lubrication and well reception of penis and facilitates reproduction. Stimulation of breasts even leads to orgasm whose apparent reaction is rhythmic contraction of some reproductive organs. Therefore, breasts are reproductive organs whose linkage to other reproductive organs in human reproduction are well-known to people. Covering breasts is for the same purpose as covering other reproductive organs, which is for avoidance of functional damage and attraction for random copulation and reproduction, which must be an expression of high order natural selection and thus a self-regulation of quality and quantity of human population.

    • to be clear in expression, correction is as following:
      "which is for avoidance of both functional damage and attracting random copulation and reproduction"

    • Societies of people who have "easy" access to food and material for survival tend to have large and concentrated population and tend to covering up reproductive organs more frequently than those societies who comparatively have difficult access to essential material and are in need for large membership to coexist. Too many people to share the "easy" food may thin up resource and turn "easy" to "hard". Covering up is for sure an act to reduce incidents of reproduction and thus quantity of population. As a result, population will continue to exist. While essential material is difficult to obtain, population tend to "open up" reproductive organs and let "all kinds" of incidents of reproduction to occur. Thus, crucial quantity of membership can sustain getting enough essential material for the "difficult" society. These societies often have high birthrate which must tie to high incidents of sexual intercourse and high mortality rate because of their harsh environment.