Conference turris::womannotes-v2

>		I have several shirts where the
>neckline, even with the top-button buttoned, goes below the starting point of
>the scoop-necked vest. Any cotton-vest-type-thingys with the same neckline as a
>bra?


	Mez,

	I get cotton or mostly cotton camisoles at Marshall's to wear in
	the summer that are cool and comfortable with lower necklines.
	I have trouble with finding them in regular department stores
	since I shop for them when I need them in the summer.

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			Some even have a little lace around the
			top.

I'm curious - if you don't need the support of a bra, what's the point
of the camisole/undershirt/whatever?  Is there something I'm missing here?

Anyway, maybe you want to try something I bought the other day, but haven't
had a chance to try: stick-on bras.  They are just adhesive strips of 
relatively stiff cloth that attaches directly to the underside of the 
breast.  It struck me a strange, and I dn't know if they work, but I
hope so cause I have a backless dress that is more or less useless if
they don't!

D!

    Re .2, well, I've often wondered why I should have to wear a camisole
    since I don't need the support of a bra, and I've decided that it's
    because I just don't want to take the responsibility of shocking
    the world by having nipples (gasp!) show through my clothes.  Other
    people might think I was a slut or something, or someone might mention
    it to me, and I'd die of embarrassment or something to that effect.
     Anyway, I've always gotten the distinct impression that it's  not
    socially acceptable to have nipples show through a white or see
    thru blouse, in public, unless I become a rock singer or movie star.
     That's why I usually wear a camisole.  I usually buy them at
    Victoria's Secret.
    
    Lorna
    

    aha!  found the topic (sheesh some of these things are tough to
    dig up...).  Discussion of "cotton vests" of the camisole type is
    scattered in and amongst responses to the "topfree equality" topic
    (topic 61 in this file).  61.25 and 61.45 discuss them, but I'm sure
    there are others as well.
    
    -Jody
    

Ah, to hide your nipples, of course! I didn't even think of it - I guess
because it's a non-issue to me, since I would never consider stepping out
of the house without a bra anyway.

I've been to a couple of strip bars (yeah, I have, so sue me!) where
the local regulations say that the dancers' nipples can't show.  They
wear things called "pasties" - just little sticky things that go on
to hide the nipples.  Some where those little circular, flesh-colored
band-aids, with the padding removed.  Seems like that would work...

D!

	I wear them (camisoles) for protection from rough cloth and
	to help stay cool (which seems strange but does work for me)
	in summer and warm in winter.  I also have skin problems with
	wool so I need as much betweem me and my sweaters as possible.

	_peggy
		(-)
		 |
			Movement free of unnecessary constraints.

	     I've also been slightly confused by what's been written on
	the subject of bras both here and in topic 709 on "Sex Roles <->
	Objectification of Women".

	     It seems to me that snug-fitting undershirts would be
	warmer, not cooler than bras, since more skin is being covered.
	Also, I've never quite understood why women who need some degree
	of support dislike bras, since I find it more uncomfortable to
	*not* wear one during most activities...

	     Perhaps these are unusual reasons -- I find not wearing a
	bra to be a slightly arousing thing to do (to myself), because of
	the contact between my breasts and shirt.  Don't laugh - but I'm
	not comfortable walking around in a continual state of slight-
	arousal when I am trying to focus on anything else besides sex!
	Also, during my period my breasts get very tender. Any extra
	movement during walking or any accidental contact is painful.  I
	feel much more at ease wearing a bra during that time.

	     I strongly identify breasts as part of a woman's sexual
	existence...her sexual expression...her sexual self.  Therefore,
	I have trouble understanding the notion of top-free equality.  I
	simply don't look upon men's chests as anywhere near as intensely
	sexual as women's breasts.  They are not equal, so why treat them
	as though they are?  I guess this is anti-feminist. (?)


	My general gripes about bras are the following -

	1) After I find a style I like, it has been discontinued by the
	next time I look for it.

	2) Front-closing bras will occasionally come undone when
	receiving a hug.  This can be very disconcerting if a bathroom is
	not close by!  Has anyone else had this experience with front-
	closing bras?
 	                                                 nancy b.

    I don't really know why I wear a bra unless it is because of habit.
     I am so flat that when I need to make my monthly checkup for cancer,
    I just look down, and if there is a bump I call my gyn.
    
    I have found that cotton vests are nice when I exercise, and they
    fit snug but not uncomfortably so.
    
    However, I did find a lovely silk camisole that has a very low scoop
    neck and does not cling, and I have worn that without a bra under
    some blouses and feel quite comfortable.  
   
    
    That was found at Marshalls.
    
    M

    re:  <----------  front closures

    Is that like a front porch????   ;*)

    Seriously, it not only pops open when getting hugged BUT when
    leaning over doing regular stuff.  Those little (?) pendulums
    just swing together and SNAP the little sucker open!  Freedom,
    freedom to swing in the breeze!  Disconcerting to say the least
    in the middle of the workplace.

    justme....jacqui

    ps.....looks funny fumbling with the front of your upper torso
    in the middle of your work cubie!

    I wish I was small enough to get by without a bra, but as I age I
    find that I have to have the extra support.  I'm more
    uncomfortable without it, especially during exercise. A day
    without a bra will leave my breasts so tender I can't stand to
    have them touched.
    
    That doesn't mean I *like* wearing a bra all the time.  I don't
    like any clothing that's tight or binding unless it's very
    stretchy, and a bra sturdy enough to offer support is not
    stretchy.  This tightness and the heavier material also make the
    bra seem sticky and hot in hot weather.  Something loosely woven
    like a camisole feels cooler even if it covers more skin area. 
    
    Not wearing a bra, or having my nipples show, doesn't particularly
    bother me.  I just wish exercising my choice in matters of dress
    didn't cause me physical discomfort.
    
    --bonnie

    I wear camosoles (silk and cotton) all the time.  I hate bras and
    always had.  I wear t-shirts sometimes too.  I'd be bra-less all
    the time if my nipples didn't show.  But since they do, I wear whats
    comfortable.
    
    .5  This reminded me of when I used to go bra-less all the time.
    (Before I had babies and when my breast stood up) I would wear those
    little round bandaids without the cotton to hide my nipples.  This
    was especially when I went to the grocery store (you know, the frozen
    food section!)  It worked...
    Anna
    

RE: .7 (nancy Bittle)

>    Don't laugh - but I'm
>    not comfortable walking around in a continual state of slight-
>    arousal when I am trying to focus on anything else besides sex!
Is there anything else? :-)  (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.)

>     I simply don't look upon men's chests as anywhere near as intensely
>     sexual as women's breasts. 
    I  differ.  Many  women  seem to find a man's bare chest sexy. (At
    least  that's  what  my  girlfriends have told me, but they may be
    biased,  and  they may have ulterior motives :-) I can't speak for
    anyone  else,  but  my  chest, and particularly my nipples is very
    sensitive.  Is it as intensely sexual as a woman's breasts? Damned
    if I know.

--David

	I think that the decision to wear or not wear a bra has to
	do with age, size and types of work of the woman.

	I do not think that it has much (if anything) to do with
	the sexual attitude of the woman.

	I find that some men's bare chests are very interesting. :*)

	_peggy

		(-)
		 |
			The grey-haired granny look of
			 a feminist activist

re: .9  (justme....jacqui)
    ----------------------  

        Thanks for sharing your 'war stories'!  At least now I know
it's not just *me*!

	I've never had that happen to me at work, thank goodness.  
Though once in college it happened just outside a classroom before an exam.  
I told the friend that gave me the hug, "You creep!  You just undid my bra!"  
He thought that was the neatest trick and wanted me to let him try to 
do it again so he could try it on his girlfriend!!!  I didn't have time 
to go to the bathroom to fix the situation as the exams were being handed 
out.  Needless to say  (keeping in mind my earlier statements about what
happens to me when not wearing a bra), I had  a difficult time concentrating 
on transistor theory during the exam.


re: .10 (TLE::Randall)
    ------------------

Wow.  Are you the famous Bonnie Randall Schutzman from =wn=V1?
I've read some of your notes there.  Welcome back!


re: .12 (Mr. Wittenberg)
     -------------------

->    Don't laugh - but I'm
->    not comfortable walking around in a continual state of slight-
->    arousal when I am trying to focus on anything else besides sex!

> Is there anything else? :-)  (I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.)

	OK. Fine.  I told you not to laugh!  :-). 

->     I simply don't look upon men's chests as anywhere near as intensely
->     sexual as women's breasts. 
 
>   I  differ.  Many  women  seem to find a man's bare chest sexy. 

	Oh David, you know I never said I don't find a man's bare chest 
sexy! Actually, I think one of the sexiest men I've seen recently was 
walking a bike wearing no shirt and those awesome lycra biker shorts!  
(but I admit it might have been the lycra biker shorts rather than the
 chest that I found attractive, but ... the chest helped)
Oops!  am I objectifying men here?  I think it's fun, not to mention
being a useful instructional tool, to turn the tables sometimes :-).  

I was *trying* to say the following - if you look at the term sexual on 
a continuum and place men's chests and women's breasts in relative
places on the continuum, I would put women's breasts way ahead of men's
chests.  To further clarify, this is true for me in the most general view.
I know that the sensitivity can vary greatly from man to man; some guys
are quite indifferent, others aren't.  Depending on the degree of intimacy
of the moment and the man, the respective locations on the sexual continuum
could converge.

							nancy b.

>re: .10 (TLE::Randall)
>    ------------------
>
>Wow.  Are you the famous Bonnie Randall Schutzman from =wn=V1?
>I've read some of your notes there.  Welcome back!
>
    
    Famous????? Oh, God have mercy, are my sins going to follow me all
    the way to my grave?  
    
    Yes, that's me -- I've gone intermittent read-only since last
    winter . . . between being pregnant and at a bad point in my
    project, I haven't had time for notes.  I still don't have time
    for notes.  So what, you ask, am I doing in this discussion?
    
    Wishing it was fall and I had a cute cuddly baby in my arms
    instead of a kicking baby inside a huge tummy, that's what . . . 
    
    --bonnie

A womannoter does some gun and archery instruction, and has been asked by women
he teaches:

"
about the effects of one's period on
competitive shooting and the problems of finding shooting jackets
that fit women comfortably and finding the right combination of
jacket and things underneath to be comfortable and therefore not
distracted from the art form of proper position, sight picture,
trigger squeeze, and not flinching.

... [I] wonder if women's
undergarments designed specifically for athletic purposes are
of any value. 
"

	Mez

    Camisoles are definitely cooler -- especially silky ones in summer. 
    
    I had to laugh at the images of front-hooked bras unhooking! I've worn
    front hooked ones for eons and have never had them unhook for any
    reason, let alone hugs or other good stuff. (they're Warner, Body
    Slicks) -- maybe the hooks are too tight? :-)
    
    'course, then again, maybe I don't have enough inside the bra to force
    the hooks to fly open!! :-)
    
    --Lynn
    

    men can have problems, too........
    
     On my high school soccer team, we would end up playing through
    some cold October days with these flimsy nylon team jerseys, and
    I couldn't, at the time, understand why my nipples would feel so
    raw and irritated after the games.
    
    -roger                            
    

    I would like to commment on Nancy's comments in .7:

>	     I strongly identify breasts as part of a woman's sexual
>	existence...her sexual expression...her sexual self.  Therefore,
>	I have trouble understanding the notion of top-free equality.  I
>	simply don't look upon men's chests as anywhere near as intensely
>	sexual as women's breasts.  They are not equal, so why treat them
>	as though they are?  I guess this is anti-feminist. (?)

    The logic of the top-free equality movement is that breasts, women's or
    men's, are not "sex organs" (in the same sense that genitals are).�
    They have been strongly associated with sex in our culture; but there
    is hardly any part of the female body -- feet, ankles, calves, faces,
    hair ... -- that hasn't been regarded as "indecent" in some culture.
    In short, I'm suggesting that the perceived inequality is, like most
    such inequalities, primarily a matter of cultural conditioning.

    We have a neat cycle.  Women mustn't expose their breasts because they
    are indecent, because they are "sex organs."  Everyone knows that they
    have to do with sex, because they're always hidden, and the only place
    you can see them is in "sex magazines" and topless bars.  Men look at
    _Playboy_ and its ilk to see women with their breasts exposed, and so
    they learn to make the association between breasts and sex.

    The monstrous conclusion of this illogic, of course, comes when a woman
    is told that she mayn't nurse her infant in a public place because it's
    indecent to expose her breasts.

    Consider also that in some states which specifically outlaw the
    exposure of the female breast, there is a specific exemption for
    "entertainment" -- that is, for topless bars and "strip joints."  What
    does it say about a woman's right to control her body when she can bare
    her breasts for pay, to titillate men, in a bar or a magazine, but not
    for her own comfort on the beach or in her own yard?

    	-Neil

    ----------
    
    � Technically, I suppose that a woman's breasts are a "secondary sexual
      characteristic.  But so is my beard, so that can't be the whole
      story.

    RE:.19
    
    Well said, Neil.
    
    --DE
    

re: (.19) Neil Faiman

Neil, thanks for explaining the rationale for topfree equality in .19.  

The premise you stated in .19 --

    > The logic of the top-free equality movement is that breasts, women's or
    > men's, are not "sex organs" (in the same sense that genitals are).

differs from my opinion which I described in .7 --

    >  I strongly identify breasts as part of a woman's sexual
    >  existence...her sexual expression...her sexual self...  

But until you pointed it out, I hadn't consciously realized that people 
who shared my opinion above would then wrongly conclude, "What is true 
in my mind is true for all people", and try to *legislate* their beliefs.
Such lunacy.  You provided the following examples --

    >  The monstrous conclusion of this illogic, of course, comes 
    >  when a woman is told that she mayn't nurse her infant in a public 
    >  place because it's indecent to expose her breasts.

    >  Consider also that in some states which specifically outlaw the
    >  exposure of the female breast, there is a specific exemption for
    >  "entertainment" -- that is, for topless bars and "strip joints."  
    >  What does it say about a woman's right to control her body when 
    >  she can bare her breasts for pay, to titillate men, in a bar or a 
    >  magazine, but not for her own comfort on the beach or in her own yard?


Just a couple more questions : 


If this is the cultural conditioning that works for [some] men...

    > Men look at _Playboy_ and its ilk to see women with their breasts 
    > exposed, and so they learn to make the association between breasts 
    > and sex.

then what conditions [some] women to make the associations between 
breasts and sexuality like I did in .7? 

What  *non-sexual*  role do breasts have in the life of a woman who
has never needed to nurse an infant?   

IMHO, they really seem to be of no use or function most of the time.
And though my overall attitude towards breasts is positive, I often
find them to be an annoyance during sports activities with any kind
of physical contact, like basketball.  Getting an elbow to the chest
hurts and is distracting!  
						nancy b.		

>then what conditions [some] women to make the associations between 
>breasts and sexuality like I did in .7? 

Cosmo covers, R-rated movies, advertisements for almost anything....
	Mez

    ...jokes,TV shows, clothing displays in stores, catalogs...
    
    

re: .22:
>then what conditions [some] women to make the associations between 
>breasts and sexuality like I did in .7? 

Feeling of pleasure when touched? 

Or do you assume that only sighted people make these associations?

Martin.

    Martin's reply is to me the obvious one, and I was wondering why
    it hadn't been already mentioned. Women (or at least this woman)
    associate(s) breasts with sexuality because touching them arouses
    sexual feelings.
    
    Bonnie

	But so don't whispering sweet nothings - does that mean I 
	have to cover my ears???


	_peggy

			(-)
			 |

				There are a lot of sexually
				stimulating areas on the body
				and some people respond to 
				them all.  Do they get to wear
				a veil covering all of them?

    Even ignoring for the moment "whispering sweet nothings", Peggy
    has a very good point there. Ears are very erogenous for a number
    of people.
    
    --- jerry

    Many men are sensitive there too.
    	L

    Now you know why I don't wear earrings . . .
    
    --bonnie

    Oops, my reply was to .24 and .25 (nipples) not to Peggy (ears).
    Either way -.1 makes sense.  :-)
    	Linda

        I've heard (read) an interesting theory on the sexual nature of
        women's breasts. I don't know that I subscribe to it, but it is
        interesting and makes an amount of sense. It involves some
        number of details of human sexuality, so I have posted it after
        a form feed for those who are sensitive to such things.
        
        The theory starts with the observation that in order to nourish
        offspring you need nothing more than the barely visible breasts
        of the great apes and that thus the extremely obvious breats
        must serve some other purpose. It then goes on to observe that
        the twin-globe look of the breasts is similar to the that of the
        buttocks. The buttocks are a visible sexual cue for many/most
        primates. Many apes and monkeys who are otherwise covered with
        hair have bared buttocks, some brightly colored.
        
        It is further observed that non-human primates (and mammals for
        that matter) mate with the male approaching the female from the
        rear. The twin-globe look thus becomes a deeply ingained sexual
        image and target for higher primates, whom it will be remembered
        are extremely vision-oriented. The theory then goes on to
        postulate that the twin-globe breasts serve as a way of luring
        the human male around to the front of the human female. It
        worked and humans tend to mate face to face as a result. Face to
        face mating is much more personal since we are our faces in many
        ways, and so this makes mating a more personal and less entirely
        reproductive matter.
        
        Thus the prominence and shape of a woman's breasts, and their
        role as a sexual attractant, along with such practices as
        recreactional rather than purely procreational sex, kissing and
        face-to-face sex are a part of the whole evolution of the
        importance of interpersonal relations, pair bonding, love and
        family-centeredness that makes the human family as importnat a
        part of our culture and being as it is.
        
        An interesting perspective.
        
        JimB.

    re .31
    
    If I'm not mistaken, this theory was first put forward (or at least
    popularized) in the book "The Naked Ape" about a decade ago. I'm sure
    somebody can come up with the author - it was a best seller at the time.

    Desmond Morris (?)

    Yes, Desmond Morris popularized it -- and not only in the Naked
    Ape but in several of his other books as well.
    
    His belief is that human sexuality bonds the mated pair together
    and allows the development of emotional intimacy, which in turn
    fosters long-term family relations, which prolongs childhood for
    the human offspring, which allows greatly increased learning --
    society can pass on a lot more accumulated knowledge in a 12-year
    childhood period than in the two or three years typical of other
    primates -- which in turn speeds evolution.  I've always thought
    it made a fair amount of sense from both the emotional and
    evolutionary points of view, but a college psychology course on
    sexuality that I took said that while the biological functions as
    JimB reports them were pretty well accepted by some schools of
    thought, they were almost completely rejected by others.
    
    So if we want to argue about the theory's validity, we've got good
    company . . .
    
    --bonnie

what's a bra????  :-)  


The major staples in my lingerie collection are the body stockings I have.
A body stocking is basically the same as a unitard with no sleeves.  They
are made of nylon/cotton/etc and allow very free movement while giving slight
support....Not only are they my most comfortable pieces of lingerie, they
are also my most sexy....... :-)

And I refuse to wear a bra..................(except for "special occasions")

/kath

    Re. -.35 
    
    Excuse me, but when you wear a unitard, how do you, you know, take
    care of bodily functions?
         
    Blushing,
    Karen

It's not really a "unitard" as such....since it's nylon, you would 
NEVER want to wear it with nothing else.....(well, except on certain
occasions perhaps....)  

to answer your question, it has a slit in the crotch.  Have you ever seen
the "crotch-less" panties in lingerie stores that have slits in them?  same
concept.....

/kath

	Re: .31

	There is another point of view on this theory which Germaine
	Greer wrote about in the Ascent of Woman - posted after a form
	feed to follow Jim's convention.
	
        
        > It is further observed that non-human primates (and mammals for
        > that matter) mate with the male approaching the female from the
        > rear. The twin-globe look thus becomes a deeply ingained sexual
        > image and target for higher primates, whom it will be remembered
        > are extremely vision-oriented.

	Here's where the Greer's theory differs - she theorizes that
	face-to-face mating was a direct result of human ancestors
	returning to the sea for some amount of time.  Seems like most,
	if not all, sea mammals which mate in the water, do so face-to-face.
	From what I remember (read this book a long time ago!), breast
	shape/size was directly connected to suckling of young (in her
	opinion) which is somewhat consistent with other sea mammals.

	She also thinks that this theory explains bodily hair loss in
	humans which staying on land and evolving from land primate
	ancestors doesn't do as well.  Also leads to some clues as to
	why babies can swim at a very young age.

	If anyone has read the book and can remember any more of the 
	theory (and correct any of it that I may have mis-remembered),
	I'd be interested to hear it as my recollection appears to be
	sketchy.

						Jan

    The theory that our ancestors spent one or two million years living in
    the water was proposed by Elaine Morgan, who has written at least two
    books on the subject.  I was not aware that Germain Greer was touting
    this theory, but perhaps she got her ideas from Morgan.  About six
    years ago, I took a physical anthropology course, and the professor
    briefly mentioned Morgan's theory, but she did not think much it; in
    fact, as I recall, she considered Morgan to be rather unscientific.  I
    suspect that the majority of anthropologists do reject this theory,
    although it is rather interesting. 

    -- Mike

    I'm losing track of the original topic, but wasn't one of Elaine Morgan's
    books called"The Aquatic Ape?"  If so, its really interesting reading
    and causes one to rethink the old "hunter/gatherer" theory of
    evolution.  Unscientific is I'd classify her book, though.  But no more
    or less so than some other paleoanthropological theories...

   I remember the book title being the Ascent of Woman to contrast with the
   Descent of Man (by Darwin?).  However, I could have easily blown the
   author and it could be Morgan.  There were so many books that came out
   around that time and my memory isn't what it used to be :-).

						Jan