It's not just Kerry's daughter that shows off
her puny breasts in public, but look at Chelsea Clinton!
She had a bit too much to drink and entered a wet tee shirt contest...
Now go and clean your eyes.
Posted on 05/21/2004 8:55:20 AM PDT by SteveH
Study: Breast Baring Popular in 1600s
By Jennifer Viegas, Discovery News
May 17, 2004 — Women of the 1600s, from queens to prostitutes, commonly exposed one or both breasts in public and in the popular media of the day, according to a study of fashion, portraits, prints, and thousands of woodcuts from 17th-century ballads.
The finding suggests breast exposure by women in England and in the Netherlands during the 17th century was more accepted than it is in most countries today. Researchers, for example, say Janet Jackson's Super Bowl baring would not even have raised eyebrows in the 17th century.
# See it on TV: Get a reminder to watch "Discovery Sunday."
# Explore More: in "Unsolved History"
# Read about researchers working in the field featured in our Discovery Quest series.
Angela McShane Jones, a lecturer in history at University of Warwick in Coventry, England, became interested in the subject while studying the nearly 2,000 woodcut ballads housed in the Samuel Pepys collection at Cambridge University. Additional ballad sheets located at the British Library, the National Library of Scotland, Harvard University, and other institutions fuelled her study.
Ballad sheets served as the pop music and pulp fiction of their time. With a cost between half a penny and a penny, they were affordable, and could be purchased from street hawkers, and at fairs and markets. Most featured a woodcut that illustrated 10 to 14 verses of song.
Many of these woodcuts showed women with breasts bared.
Jones told Discovery News that the ballad depictions of women coincided with popular fashion. At the time, women often wore low-cut dresses that exposed the chest and breast.
In paintings, breast exposure could have symbolic meaning, particularly when only one breast was shown. Jones explained that high court ladies often were painted in allegories as classical figures or as female saints, whose martyrdom usually involved breast removal.
Far from being a sign of tawdriness, Jones said breast exposure during the 1600s could indicate a woman's virtue.
"The exposure of the breast was a display of the classical and youthful beauty of the woman — she was showing her 'apple like' unused Venus breasts," Jones said. "This was a display of her virtue, her beauty, and her youth. Upper class women maintained the quality of their breasts by not breast feeding their children and passing them on to wet nurses."
She added, "Though women outside the upper circles may well have taken to this style, it began as a very high-class fashion which demonstrated high class and classical ideals of female beauty. The husband of a woman dressed like this would be proud to have his classical beauty on display, and for a woman it was part of her honor that she could display her virtue in this way."
Jones believes the trend probably started with Agnes Sorel, who was a mistress in the French court during the 1400s. The fashion spread, and was popularized in England by Queen Mary II and Henrietta Maria, the wife of King Charles I. In fact, the famous British architect Inigo Jones designed a dress for Henrietta Maria that fully revealed her breasts.
Bernard Capp, professor of history at the University of Warwick, agrees that breast exposure was prevalent, and not scandalous, during certain periods of British history.
Capp said during these times, "Revealing attire — worn in the right social spaces — could be fully compatible with virtue and honor."
He added that some conservatives and court outsiders, such as the 17th-century Puritan lawyer William Prynne, objected to the popular clothing, which female actresses often wore.
Capp said Prynne once criticized Henrietta Maria after she performed in a court masque, and in 1633 wrote, "... women actors (are) notorious whores."
The government responded by having his ears chopped off.
Breast-displaying fashion had a number of comebacks in the 18th and 19th century, including during the Victorian era. Jones said during many of these bust-baring periods it would have been shocking for a woman to show her shoulders or legs, which were more associated with male sexuality.
"I think that parts of the body are sexualized and desexualized for a whole range of reasons," she said. "The breasts have become a part of the body which is seen as entirely sexual, but that could change again."
I think this topic could use more exposure ;-)
I think the idea of breast-baring has a couple of outstanding points...
Perhaps we should consult the current expert on the issue. Get Alexandra Kerry on the phone
Idiots. They are not just sweater decorations, they have a biological purpose.
and passing them (the children, not the breasts) on to wet nurses."
All the humorous comments aside, I have yet to understand the big whoop with the 'wardrobe malfunction' debacle.
Can someone please explain this to me?
Boobs = bad.
People being killed, sliced and diced on NYPD blue and CSI = good clean family fun.
(selective outrage is what I think they call it)
This article is the setup BEFORE the press allows the general public to see the pictures of J F'n Kerry's slut of a daughter
We thought it part of an ongoing erosion of mores and standards, a retrogression to some more barbaric era. This research confirms it.
Repeat after me. They are just breasts, they are just breasts. Hell, I have a pair and I am sure someone in your family does too. ;->
Do you get this upset about all the violent deaths that happen each night on broadcast tv?
Will there be re-enactments?
"Mr Peabody, set the Wayback Machine to 1650...destination: Stockholm, Sweden!"
How dare you suggest that anyone in my family has breasts!
You mean "Old Saggy"?
The government responded by having his ears chopped off.
Lots of Freepers would be having trouble holding up their eyeglasses if that comment got the same punishment today.
The government responded by having his ears chopped off.
By the late 1640s, the English Revolution was on. The Puritains called the tunes for 20 years.
"Study: Breast Baring Popular in 1600s"
Update: Still Popular Today!
Hear hear, for juggs.
Women today are just making mountains out of molehills.
Hello inflation, did you ever get a response to the fact that you and your husband enjoy porn from the other forum about what women think about during sex?
You should see those old Gutenberg printings of 'Easy Riders'. Hot stuff.
Frankly I am a bit disappointed, no pics.
I am, Lord knows, not an expert on fashion history, but it seems to me that there have been several periods when bustlines plunged, and yet legs (sometimes even ankles) were evidently deemed too erotic to show in public.
As always, thanks for keeping us abreast of the situation.
I'll just note its popular with me here in the year 2004, on May 21st.....and I feel very confident in my prediction that will remain unchanged til....well, the day I die.
But hey, thats just me....
No, but otherwise, that isn't stopping folks here from milking it for all it's worth ;-)
How can we be sure without pictoral evidence.
I don't have a copy of Easy Riders older than the 1750's.
I always knew I was born in the wrong era.
Get outa town, that's Kerry's daughter and Chelsee!!??
How about a Warning Tag next time. Use Mine.
WARNING. Reading the following comment may cause spewing of liquids on to keyboard and monitor. Please swallow before continuing. No animals were injured in the making of this post. Any similarity to reality is purely coincidental. Any factual statement is not the intent of the poster. Views expressed by the poster are not necessarily shared by the poster. Price is for 24 month lease with $2500 down. Your mileage may vary. Objects are closer than the appear. No shirt, no shoes, no service. You must be at least this tall to ride. Do not remove under penalty of law. Remain seated until the ride comes to a full and complete stop. Reading this post may cause low birth weight. Not recommended for viewers with heart conditions, back or neck injuries, breathing difficulties, recent surgery or illness, high blood pressure and carpal tunnel syndrome.
It is called INCREMENTALISM - that nasty little word that the "conservatives" have seemed to have forgotten. WHY? Because they have already been indoctrinated into their clutches!
Look back 5, 10, or even 30 years (if some of you still have useful memories left). Does anyone remember the SHOCK of "Three's Company" ? Probably not. why? because immorality had been slowly festered upon you. I noticed it because I was overseas for two years - I came back, turned on the TV and there was a buxom blonde in a teddy on regular TV! Talk about a culture shock! Two years earlier, and they would have been thrown off the air and fined. Now, that show is considered "Oh, How Cute!" instead of "Ugh! Look at the low-class immoral behavior!"
Give an inch - and they will take a mile.
Remember the 45 GOALS OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY exposed by the DEMOCRAT representative from Florida? (that was before Fla became the mecca of New Yorkers and really dumbed down!)
No? Why not? because they HAVE achieved them - all those that still apply.
http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=177
Now they are into the goals set by Antonio Gramsci to attain their version of the "One World Order"
http://www.gohotsprings.com/focus/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=434
Either wake up now, or you can call your friends "Komrade"
Reptile ping: I think this article raises a couple of very good points...
Whats wrong with good ol fashion cleavage? Yahooo
This is udder nonsense.
Where did you go overseas to? If you went to western europe / japan you would have seen much worse (using your standards) on tv than you see in the USA.
Exposing them ion the 1600's B.C. was popular too - check out Ancient Cretan Goddess statues and paintings of women.
Yes, and please keep me abreast of the situation.:)
Qoz!
To tell a little bit of Louisiana history. In the early 1600s, the French wanted to "Wal-Mart" the region and pump out alot of agricultural products...indigo, rice, cotton, etc. They needed cheap labor and slaves hadn't yet been introduced into the region. So they went back to France, Germany and Netherlands...and got alot of folks out of prison (male and female), and forced them to America. The deal was two to six years of forced labor and then your freedom. As one observer made note two or three years into this program....he and his fellow traveler were to visit a plantation area several hours north of Orleans...as they arrived at the beginning of the property...there were several men in the field with no shirts on. As they came closer, they relized that half of the workers were actually women (without any top or blouse). In the heat of summer, it had been totally acceptable for all parties to dress in such a manner. The travelers were shocked but the owner of the property said it was all you could do because of the summer heat involved.
Needless to say, the whole forced labor concept involing the French/German workers failed because too many of the workers were involved in other "non-farm" activities and didn't care about hard physical labor. One can only guess what the non-farm activities were at that time.
That's it!, I'm building a flux-capacitor.
The random eddies of the gene pool weren't especially kind to the Horseface's daughter, were they?
"Girls Gone Wild a Historical Review" I can't wait.
A Bush on the bush.
I can't imagine her not winning that contest. It goes right back to the article and aristocracy bearing themselves. There's certainly something hot about high class hooters vs cheap ho hooters.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.