I heard that women in medieval India was topless upto 1200 AD.. Why ? India was developed in many areas on that time , but women were topless.. Why ?

  • 9
    I reject the notion that toplessness is related to development. I discourage questions that are based on something someone heard. – MCW Feb 7 '14 at 11:56
  • @MarkC.Wallace it's however a typical attitude of many "modern" cultures that (partial) nudity is a sign of primitive, backwards, societies. Maybe the question could be rephrased in that context. – jwenting Feb 7 '14 at 13:58
  • 1
    I would object to the rephrase as well. There are value judgements embedded that I find diminish both intellectual discourse and historical learning. Might be that not everyone shares my predjudice. I really wish we had a specialist in women's history and gender studies available. – MCW Feb 7 '14 at 14:16
  • 4
    -1 for the same reason as the "sacking of cities" question. Why shouldn't they be topless? If it's true it was probably the custom in warm climates - so why wear a bra or covering for the breasts, especially since a lot of them were probably breast feeding? Why do you think they should "cover up"?! Even today, some rain forest people don't wear clothes at all! You insist on evaluating History through the lens of your own contemporary "civilized" POV. Bad. – user2590 Feb 8 '14 at 8:53
  • 2
    -1.Where have you heard this in yesterday's radio news?Or are you researching on this? – AskingStory Feb 8 '14 at 14:06

Being "developed" has nothing to do with how people dress (or don't).
Indian society considered dress to be utalitarian rather than a means to hide the body because of some religious diktats. IMO that's highly developed, far more so than the primitive idea of letting your actions be decided by priests...
Also, as a result they had no body taboos like are so common in primitive societies (and in modern societies, which in that regard are very primitive).

The body taboos now ruling India were AFAIK only introduced during the Muslim occupation by the Mugals, and later by the Victorian British.
Looking at old photos of the Dutch East Indish, you see topless women there at least in rural areas as late as the 1920s or '30s.

  • So first you say Indians are more developed because they didn't let some priest decide what you should wear, then you call modern societies primitive for having tattoos, a practice that usually goes against the social norms. You should pick one. – Jeroen K Feb 8 '14 at 19:01
  • @JeroenK no, I'm saying they're not LESS developed for it. "Social norms" are determined in large part by those same priests btw. – jwenting Feb 10 '14 at 7:34
  • "Also, as a result they had no body taboos like are so common in primitive societies (and in modern societies, which in that regard are very primitive)" i thought you meant primitive in a negative sense. Also for some reason I can't remove the downvote unless you edit. – Jeroen K Feb 10 '14 at 8:37

According to ancient Indian view ... Sex is not an outcast .. They think it is an holy own since it creates a new life..

Indians thnk breast as a sexul organ , but don't insist women to close it , because sexulity is not demonised on that days .

Indians considered breast as a part for milk feeding , then only for sex.

Indians viewed breast as a symbol of motherhood...

  • 2
    Do you have any sources for this? Superior answers are supported by research. – MCW Feb 7 '14 at 11:59
  • 2
    This is opinionated, too vague. "Indians think.." Which Indians? Which period? Which school of thought? Breast for breast-feeding first and sex only second- where is the proof of this? – Rajib Feb 8 '14 at 14:56

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.