The morality of breasts

[Argus]

So here it is a lazy Saturday morning, and I'm contemplating a few things of little importance but considerable interest. I think all of us have considerable interest in breasts. The other day, I had a conversation with a colleague on the subject of the ethics and morality of eying/staring at/ogling/getting glimpses of the female breast. A friend of ours was once chastised by management for allegedly getting too good a look, if you know what I mean. Which reminded us both of Jerry Seinfeld's admonition on looking at breasts "It's like looking at the Sun. You never stare at it, it's too risky. You get a sense of it, then look away!".

I once worked with a girl who was generously endowed, and was always grumbling about men looking at her chest. Yet she wore very tight tops, and often enough, showed a little cleavage. Now, in an institutional setting in this day and age, cleavage is as rare as an honest politician. So you have to wonder what she was up to. Still and all, men, and how perverted they are, seems a common refrain among women, especially middle aged women. Any man who dares to noticeably appreciate a female's looks is deemed guilty of some sort of offense. Especially in an institutional setting.

Years ago I worked as a clerk, and there were a number of attractive young women working with me, including the one mentioned above. There seemed to be an awful lot of middle aged men who regularly found reason to walk through our section, despite having no business with us. And they weren't all there staring at miss buxom. The other girls were more discrete, but hey, they were attractive and in their late teens/early twenties. The middle aged women really hated the attitude of the men, some of whom would openly discuss what so-and-so was wearing that day.

And so my colleague and I got to wondering when it became wrong for men to appreciate the attractiveness of a healthy young woman. There's a line in a song that goes "I can't even look at girls anymore, people will think I'm some kind of pervert" which kind of reflects that thinking. But aren't men kind of hard-wired to take notice of, not to put too scientific a point on it 'breeding age females'? My colleague, plump, bearded, over fifty, admitted he really appreciates it when his twentysomething daughters bring their friends to the cottage. And we wondered if men, that is, grown men, adult men, not 'guys', were kind of starved of 'look'. If you worked in an institutional setting such as ours, where most females are middle aged and over, and most are overweight, you rarely see attractive young women. And if you do, chances are she's properly covered up and showing nothing. So when you do see a pretty girl nicely dressed they catch your eye much faster. It doesn't matter how happily married you are either.

Places like where I work are run by the HR department, which is almost all run by middle aged women. I wonder if that has something to do with the establishment of a culture whereby no male is allowed to notice a female, however subtly or inoffensively, and where once you pass a certain age, let's say late thirties, you aren't allowed to even notice young girls in their twenties or late teens.

All this brought up by my chat with a female colleague last week. She's blonde, mid thirties, happily married, and reasonably attractive, but she was wearing one of those loose shirts which look fine when standing up straight, but look entirely different when sitting down and leaning forward -- especially if the guy in question is standing up looking down. You get the picture. I'm sure my appreciation of her assets would have had me up before a disciplinary hearing if I wasn't discrete, but I surely did appreciate them -- and, I believe, without her knowledge. So is that voyeurism? Is that immoral? Or is that the natural, hard-wired, instinctive response to cleavage, or attractive young women? What should you do in that situation? Not look? Turn your back? Point out to her that you can see some nice cleavage from that angle? Move back? Is any of that realistic at all?

And who made up the rules on morality? Frumpy, overweight middle aged women?

[Guest Manny]

I don't think there's anything wrong with taking a look if you want to. That is exactly why people wear showy clothing, to be looked at and appreciated.

[Michael Hardner]

Morality is a kind of undemocratic democracy. Everybody has a part in deciding what it is, but nobody has any recourse to resist it. It's neither a positive, nor a negative: it is there. Now, we do have an idea that morality has to be based on set kind of standards, a set of principles that are based on basic rights and that are consistent.

Of course, that's impossible - there will always be gray areas and inherent contradictions. But for most of our public life, it is possible to live according to a moral code that is based on an agreed-upon set of rules roughly based on the classic 'pursuit of happiness' ideal.

So, as to why you're not allowed to glower at a young woman's tits in the workplace, it's got nothing to do with middle-aged ladies working in HR or guys with beards peeking through the bushes at a cottage: it's simple a question of rights.

Your right to ogle fresh young boobs is trumped by her right to have a workplace that is free of harassment. And ultimately, as with most functional systems of morality, that system just WORKS.

[sharkman]

If a woman doesn't want to be ogled, then she shouldn't show off the assets. Glancing at her chest is harrassment? Then glancing at a pretty face is to.

[Guest American Woman]

If a woman doesn't want to be ogled, then she shouldn't show off the assets. Glancing at her chest is harrassment? Then glancing at a pretty face is to.

Oh my. The "she's asking for it" mindset. Gotta love it. (And FYI, there's a huge difference between "glancing" and "ogling." )

[Michael Hardner]

Glancing at her chest is harrassment?

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Go to dictionary.com for 'glower' then for 'ogle' ... and finally for 'glance'.

Do you see a difference there ? Let me know how you do.

[sharkman]

No, I don't think that constitutes "asking for it". But it's unprofessional in many workplaces.

[sharkman]

I don't think we're talking about the same thing.

Go to dictionary.com for 'glower' then for 'ogle' ... and finally for 'glance'.

Do you see a difference there ? Let me know how you do.

Okay, I can agree with that.

[Argus]

So, as to why you're not allowed to glower at a young woman's tits in the workplace

As usually, Michael, you're exaggerating the actual conflict. No one likes to be 'glowered at' for any reason, or even stared at. We're not talking about staring. We're talking about noticing. We're talking about appreciating. We're talking about mens desire to see attractive young women (not stare at them) and not be accused of being perverts because of that desire.

Your right to ogle fresh young boobs is trumped by her right to have a workplace that is free of harassment. And ultimately, as with most functional systems of morality, that system just WORKS.

Harassment is an ill-defined concept which seems to grow. It used to be openly and deliberately insulting and suggestive behaviour. Now it's morphed, in some places, to even furtive looking.

[Michael Hardner]

But it's unprofessional in many workplaces.

"many" ? I suppose there's exceptions to every rule so I can't rightly dispute that. I'm just wondering if you're being careful with language, if you're thinking legalistically here, or if you work at a porno magazine.

[Guest American Woman]

No, I don't think that constitutes "asking for it".

Yet you said, and I quote, "If a woman doesn't want to be ogled, then she shouldn't show off the assets." How is that any different from "asking for it?"

But it's unprofessional in many workplaces.

Really? A woman must dress so her breasts don't attract men's attention at all, or it's "unprofessional?" Would a tent suffice in your mind?

[Argus]

No, I don't think that constitutes "asking for it". But it's unprofessional in many workplaces.

But is that universal? My understanding is it's not. Someone pointed out once that women in the workplace in many places in Europe and South America dress FAR more provocatively than women would dare to in North America. I've never seen a woman wear a miniskirt to work, but apparently that's routine in other parts of the world. Likewise, tight tops, and a little cleavage doesn't raise any concern, among men or women. Here in North America, though, any woman who dresses in what we'd call a sexy fashion, be it however modest, would draw scowls and snarky comments from other women.

[Michael Hardner]

As usually, Michael, you're exaggerating the actual conflict.

Mea culpa. (I actually typed Mea Cupla so there's your Freudian instance for today.)

Your note had some dry humour in it, so I included the same. I didn't mean to indict you personally. It's all still hypothetical.

We're talking about mens desire to see attractive young women (not stare at them) and not be accused of being perverts because of that desire.

Yes, well - best of luck. I have managed to get away with it without much of anybody noticing, but I'm subtle. Also, a leg man.

Harassment is an ill-defined concept which seems to grow. It used to be openly and deliberately insulting and suggestive behaviour. Now it's morphed, in some places, to even furtive looking.

It's still a question of dispute resolution in the end. No productive workplace can thrive allowing unsubstantiated claims to move forward. People wouldn't allow that, there would be backlash, counter suits, etc. Although, truth be told, it does still happen that the system is abused, and probably in certain cases the employer can use such complaints to manipulate dismissal or resignation of someone they don't like.

[Michael Hardner]

Would a tent suffice in your mind?

AW - don't be insensitive to his culture. He seems to be describing his culture, and the garment that his people use for such purposes is called a 'burqua'.

[Melanie_]

If you worked in an institutional setting such as ours, where most females are middle aged and over, and most are overweight, you rarely see attractive young women.

Argus, you made my morning. I have to agree...why on earth would we have women in the workplace, if they aren't young and attractive enough to appeal to their male coworkers? Once they've reached their "best before" date, they obviously have nothing left to offer, and should probably be hidden away in the "fat old lady with a moustache" department, to make room for the hot young things with bazoongas.

[Guest American Woman]

Argus, you made my morning. I have to agree...why on earth would we have women in the workplace, if they aren't young and attractive enough to appeal to their male coworkers? Once they've reached their "best before" date, they obviously have nothing left to offer, and should probably be hidden away in the "fat old lady with a moustache" department, to make room for the hot young things with bazoongas.

Yep. Gotta give all of those frumpy, overweight, unattractive middle-aged men a reason to get up and go to work in the morning.

[eyeball]

Argus, you made my morning. I have to agree...why on earth would we have women in the workplace, if they aren't young and attractive enough to appeal to their male coworkers? Once they've reached their "best before" date, they obviously have nothing left to offer, and should probably be hidden away in the "fat old lady with a moustache" department, to make room for the hot young things with bazoongas.

I think there might be some of this in the hospitality industry except the hot young things, male or female are there to appeal to customers. I've seen enough cougars turning their noses up at me for my younger co-workers to know there's something going on. It doesn't matter how much cleavage I show.

I'm just a gigolo, and everywhere I go...

Edited September 29, 2012 by eyeball

[sharkman]

Yet you said, and I quote, "If a woman doesn't want to be ogled, then she shouldn't show off the assets." How is that any different from "asking for it?"

Really? A woman must dress so her breasts don't attract men's attention at all, or it's "unprofessional?" Would a tent suffice in your mind?

After Michael pointed it out, I realized what I was thinking of was merely glancing, not ogling, which would be wrong. And as far as the workplaces where revealing clothing is accepted, I'd say clubs, bars, that kind of thing.

I'm not saying a woman must dress so her breasts don't attract men's attention at all, that would be impossible! I'm simply saying not tight tops or cleavage in an office, for example. And that goes for men too dressing unprofessionally.

[kimmy]

"many" ? I suppose there's exceptions to every rule so I can't rightly dispute that. I'm just wondering if you're being careful with language, if you're thinking legalistically here, or if you work at a porno magazine.

Well, as I still part-time as an "alcohol transfer logistics consultant" (ie... bar waitress) some amount of provocative dress is expected, both by customers and management.

It does depend on the environment, as well as one's role within the environment. I would expect that at a big business of some sort, a female IT technician and a female engineer and a female middle-manager and a female executive secretary would all have very different standards of dress, and it would probably be a result mostly of how they wanted to be perceived by their colleagues.

Morality is a kind of undemocratic democracy. Everybody has a part in deciding what it is, but nobody has any recourse to resist it. It's neither a positive, nor a negative: it is there. Now, we do have an idea that morality has to be based on set kind of standards, a set of principles that are based on basic rights and that are consistent.

Now that's an interesting comment. I'd never thought of it in that way, but it really does fit. We receive feedback on our clothes from the people around us, often through non-verbal means, and we assimilate this information and reference it next time we're deciding what to wear.

I don't think women mind it when men notice their breasts. I do think women mind when men are creepy about it. There's a line somewhere and it's hard to pinpoint exactly where it is, but the guy who keeps staring at your chest is definitely on the wrong side of it.

I think the harshest criticism of womens' clothing choices comes from other women.

-k

[Argus]

Yet you said, and I quote, "If a woman doesn't want to be ogled, then she shouldn't show off the assets." How is that any different from "asking for it?"

Let's realize there's a difference between being looked at and being attacked. I don't think we should equate the two. In the context where you wear a top which is tight and low cut you ARE asking for people to look there, are you not?

[Michael Hardner]

I don't think women mind it when men notice their breasts. I do think women mind when men are creepy about it.

I would think that any kind of attention today - even commenting on eyes, hair - is likely received with caution. So the idea that noticing somebody's eyes is innocent while breasts isn't - it's kind of true but not completely.

Again, the leg man thankfully commits his crimes in total stealth.

[Argus]

It's still a question of dispute resolution in the end. No productive workplace can thrive allowing unsubstantiated claims to move forward. People wouldn't allow that, there would be backlash, counter suits, etc. Although, truth be told, it does still happen that the system is abused, and probably in certain cases the employer can use such complaints to manipulate dismissal or resignation of someone they don't like.

But my thinking is not so much on the mechanics of determining guilt or innocence but the oppressive atmosphere towards what I regard as the natural instinct of men to see, to look at, to notice, attractive women. It's a judgement which suggests all men are perverts, and that they shouldn't be looking at women, particularly as they get older.

[Argus]

Argus, you made my morning. I have to agree...why on earth would we have women in the workplace, if they aren't young and attractive enough to appeal to their male coworkers? Once they've reached their "best before" date, they obviously have nothing left to offer, and should probably be hidden away in the "fat old lady with a moustache" department, to make room for the hot young things with bazoongas.

I'm glad you agree!

But seriously, what I'm exploring is the undeniable fact that mens eyes are drawn to attractive women, and the determination by large institutions that this is somehow immoral and seedy. It's true that I've made what is a personal observation (though I would suggest our culture agrees) that most attractive women are younger and slender. But that's neither here nor there. I didn't suggest plump middle aged women ought not be present in the workplace.

A note of explanation. I work at the Canada Revenue Agency. Young people hired generally work as clerks in the the tax centres or call centres. Those are where the majority of junior positions are found. Most of the people in my building are program officers and program managers, which means the average age is north of 40.

[Michael Hardner]

But my thinking is not so much on the mechanics of determining guilt or innocence but the oppressive atmosphere towards what I regard as the natural instinct of men to see, to look at, to notice, attractive women.

I hear you - but what is civilization if not a pervasive attempt to prevent people from following their natural instincts in order to serve the greater good of order ?

Go back to the ten commandments for a list of things that we would do if we followed our natural instincts. Maybe some more than others (I'm really into 'coveting', disrespecting my parents' entertainment choices and taking the Lord's name in vain myself) but the fact is that rules prevent us from doing whatever we want. The trade off is that we're comfortable that we don't have to watch our backs all the time and be suspicious of thy neighbours.

It's a judgement which suggests all men are perverts, and that they shouldn't be looking at women, particularly as they get older.

Do what you like on your own time. There's a higher power of HR person in my house to whom I'm married and I even curtail my natural instincts around there.

Nature is great, but... uh... wait... no... no it isn't.

[Guest American Woman]

Let's realize there's a difference between being looked at and being attacked.

There's also a difference between "looking at" and ogling/staring/et al.

I don't think we should equate the two.

Who's equating the two? It's the mindset I'm equating. Just because a woman wears clothes that accentuate her curves doesn't mean she's asking to be ogled. If you are simply referring to "looking at," you certainly didn't make that clear in your opening post, with your reference to - and I quote - "eying/staring at/ogling/getting glimpses of." Women in the workplace generally don't appreciate their breasts being "stared at" and/or "ogled." So if now you are removing that aspect from your original comments, it becomes a different discussion - and I have to wonder what the point of it would be.

In the context where you wear a top which is tight and low cut you ARE asking for people to look there, are you not?

No. Some tops are tighter on women because they have bigger breasts and sometimes a normal cut top tends to show some cleavage at times. Also, women may like the clothes they are wearing, and wear them for that reason; not to attract the attention of men.

As for this....

I'm sure my appreciation of her assets would have had me up before a disciplinary hearing if I wasn't discrete,

...rightfully so. She's not there for your viewing pleasure.