I thought some of you might like this. What are your thoughts? Is there a problem, or is there not one? How should we solve it if there is? Discuss.
The whole thing on female breasts being illegal to show is a little less than accurate. Many states in the US are in the process of repealing laws against such indecency, for instance. Columbus, Ohio allows women to go topless when and wherever they feel like, as do many provinces of Canada, if I remember correctly. I do have my own reasons for not wanting to see topless women in public. Namely, it's a huge distraction. I don't even particularly like revealing clothing for the same reason. I don't see why it should be illegal though.
From a biological standpoint, and I could be wrong on all of this, when the fetus is developing in the womb, a number of features appear before gender is decided or has any bearing--and breasts are one of them. Of course, when glands and all that fun stuff are developing there is a definite difference between boys and girls, and obviously during puberty there is a huuuuuge difference, haha. But they are fundamentally the same. Society's standards are what determines what is obscene and what isn't. Even a man's bare chest was considered indecent at certain times and in certain places. I could go into a feminazi rant about it all but basically, the standard has slipped away for males, while it remains for women. On the magazine cover in question though, I think it might just be a kind of protect our ass move. It's not necessarily obscene, but in today's Think of the Children & politically-correct climate, business are unfortunately forced to do things like this. I also feel this is applicable:
Really? I did not know this. Are you entirely sure that the woman would not get arrested for indecent exposure? I would like a source. I feel that men going topless is equally distracting. Would you ever call a male's clothing 'revealing'? If not, then why is there a discrepancy?
Chests are not obscene, no matter your sex. The reason women's chests are seen as obscene is. Because they have a function and purpose related to sex, the whole taboo of it which has been around for about 300 years now, I believe. Every few centuries you get generations of people who either revel in it or clothe it. With mass media we've had to crack down on such 'obscenity'. The reason male chests are not seen as taboo, and what I'm in agreement with, is that they are not sexual in almost anyway. Nipples on men are defunct, and useless: they aren't for feeding they are just the result of oestrogen being pumped into the foetus. We all have both testosterone and oestrogen in our systems, but our sex is dependent on which of the two dominates in the circulation of the body and that time. I don't know when it is exactly, but it's when nipples are produced. The scene is not obscene. I don't care to worry over this one picture that doesn't encompass the great problem of looks, which we should all be more accepting of the diverse shapes that make us... Us! The more diverse the better, we've got the skinny, the fat, the large, the small, the straight, the curvy, and countless others. Shouldn't the most common body type be the norm body type we should all have instead of the distorted figures we are presented with in the media? I welcome them all.
Addressing the image specifically, that is definitely protected as artistic nudity. No doubt about it. The production value, make-up, lighting effects, etc. tell me that it was clearly meant as a work of art, not just pure fetish fuel, and as I recall the regulations are far looser on genuinely artistic work. So the image has been mislabeled from the get-go. I feel as if jumping straight to "We're afraid of women" is extreme. Exposing one's body, regardless of sex, is considered a matter of utmost intimacy. Only highly confident men and women, or those who seek to disconnect sex from nudity, comfortably expose themselves in public. As for the issue of censorship, yes, there is no question of lingering sexism in the different standards, but is it a matter of fear? Perhaps women's bodies are simply held in higher regard. Indecency is a matter not of fearing the offender, but of distaste for something uncouth or inappropriate; this is historically given greater stress in the woman's case. If it is fear, I would posit that it springs not from intimidation, but from an instinctive desire to "cover her shame." That said, the whole mess is rather silly. Either sex can distract or draw people's attention by exposing themselves. Either sex can be groped or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable by exposing themselves, chest or elsewhere. So I would think that censorship would be even across the board. No more of one than the mouth. The breasts are a sensitive organ, true, but far from a sensual one; their only biological purpose is breast-feeding, unless I've missed something vital that all my lady friends are hiding from me. In fact, on the same grounds, many foreign countries do not censor female breasts at all; for example, note that Japanese pornography requires the censoring of the penis and vagina, but not the breasts. True, it goes in cycles. But the censorship portion of each cycle seems to be biased regardless. False. A man's chest can leave a woman's heart aflutter as easily as the reverse, and many men's nipples are sensitive and susceptible to stimulation during sex acts. Not very manly, so you don't hear about it often.
I apologise, what I meant by sex or sexual functions, I actually meant specifically a females sexual function of breast feeding. Breast feeding in public places has been a taboo countless number of times, seen as indecent and so forth. I didn't necessarily mean that they were for sexual pleasure at all, though the sensitivity of the nipples is the most arousing aspect of the chest area on both genders, for women they only really serve a purpose. The function of breast feeding is specific only to women, Men do not have that taboo about them. The nipples serve no purpose at all for men, simply gone then nothing would happen. For women it is more of an integral part of their function as a biological caregiver. But like I said, I accept all for their looks if simply to show that we are not obscene as people.
Breast feeding is not sexual at all and does not need to be censored. Example: There are videos of women demonstrating breast feeding on Youtube; they're never flagged or taken down for being obscene.
Although I usually stay out of these kinds of discussions and such, I would like to state my beliefs on this particular subject, because there was a sort of incident when I was little. I was about seven, and my two cousins, both boys, and I [we were all very young] were playing in the living room. My cousins always played with their shirts off, and so I decided to take off my shirt too and we played like that for a few hours. Then I went to go show my dad that I wasn't wearing a shirt, and he got really mad at me and told me that girls shouldn't go around without shirts on. I didn't really get why he was so mad about it, I was little and my chest was just as flat as my cousins, and with my hair styled the right way, I could have easily passed for a boy. To me, society is what makes the body obscene. What you wear depends on where you are. You barely see any exposed skin in the Middle East, but in Brazil or Spain, they have nude beaches where one doesn't have to wear clothes. The mind turns something everyone has into something that shouldn't bee seen, and the mind thinks that way because of what it was taught by other minds around it. Not really sure what to add . . . >~>
Here in Austin, TX (AKA San Fransisco of Texas). TECHNICALLY You can go nude...so long as you are A; not exposing yourself to children, and B; not a distraction to Traffic...Breasts tend to draw rubberneckers.
