You make some convincing points. “But that’s the culture” can be a pretty lousy argument, and we should work towards correcting injustices in society. The difference here, imho, is that gay marriage (and by extension the right for a gay couple to be affectionate) are civil rights issues, whereas nipple exposure is not. Is this discrimination? Yes. Is it based on gender? Yes. But is it a civil rights issue with a clear moral high ground? In my opinion, no.
The fact that women can be topless in New York, I’m cool with that, not many people seem to be freaking out about it. The fact that female toplessness would be outlawed in most other regions of the the US, I’m ok with that too, they can set their own standards of public decency. The fact that Instagram also will not allow pics topless women, I see no problem with that either. That’s their choice and seems to be motivated by a desire to be perceived as a mainstream destination, much like Facebook or Youtube. If Chelsey Handler wants to get her nipples out there on the internet, there are plenty of options for her; Instagram just happens to not be one of them.
Let’s be honest, there probably is not a huge wave of women who desperately want to walk around topless but are suffering under the burden of restrictive laws. Nor is any nipple actually restricted in it’s ability to be exposed because of Instagram’s polices. The reason that this is an issue is because it is an exercise in testing the outer boundary of feminist ideology. I support the female empowerment goals of feminism. I think conflating feminism with murky ideas of public decency and obscenity is unproductive.
I didn’t mean to say that it’s ok to bother women, nor did I mean to imply that nudity equals porn. Bothering women is bad. And Instagram is not in the business of differentiating between tasteful nudes and soft core porn.
It’s pragmatic because if women already have a hard enough time being harassed in the streets, walking around topless is not something that I think would alleviate that.
Because I have no idea what’s indecent about a woman’s bare chest, I ask you: what’s your take on this?
Here’s my take: Men and women can and should be allowed to drive cars. Men and women can and should decide whether they want to wear scarves (or not). Men and women can and should wear shirts. Or not.
As far as public decency goes, it is worse than a civil rights issue - it is actually a criminal issue. Women do not risk merely being discriminated against, but having force used against them.
I am not ok with it. I have reviewed legislation about “decency” and “obscenity”, and it has almost entirely been based upon religious morality, which IMO has no place in secular law whatsoever. If a given religious group wants to be prudes and subject themselves to concepts such as “chastity” and “modesty” is fine, unless it affects people who are supposedly protected from not belonging to their religion. What’s worse is that these sex-negative morality plays are traditionally skewed against women in the first place. Most people have had these laws for so long that they don’t really consider that they exist explicitly to force people to fit into a white, Christian, patriarchal, Euro-colonial society. That has been their actual expressed purpose.
Since I am not recognized as a woman, my speculations of this don’t count for much.
I strongly disagree. You are suggesting that this is a mostly non-issue being discussed to make a point, but these norms affect people’s daily lives. I don’t think it’s feminist ideology that laws regarding women’s appearance are mostly enacted by men. A topless woman stands to most likely be arrested by men, and processed by a predominantly male institution. The problem with tackling this issue is that it puts their rights directly up against a strong, long-standing tradition of repressive sex roles which is mostly taken for granted. So most people don’t want to be put on the spot about a touchy issue which has usually not been discussed, and which they can’t justify without revealing their biases.
I think it would indeed alleviate the problem. The reason female toplessness attracts unwanted attention is because these dysfunctional norms make it appear unusual. If breasts were regarded as healthy and commonplace, I am confident that the immature reactions would disappear.
Ah, but the more important question is, “Who in their right mind would ride a horse shirtless?” If horsefly bites don’t drive you insane, cuts and scratches from tall brush will.
At least Handler is smart enough to wear a helmet.
If Putin insists on going shirtless, he really needs to spend time in a tanning booth. Wowsers, that dude is pink.
Is it important that unimportant people know how unimportant they are, and does that not, by extension, cause them to actually be -quite- important to you?
I think all righth-thinking people in this country are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not! And I’m sick and tired of being told that I am.
-Graham Chapman
I thought your question deserved a response that was meant to be a joke, rather than a joke masquerading as a serious opinion.
Mesopotamia is widely considered the birthplace of civilization. Therefore, many people in the most “civilized” part of the world think common decency dictates women cover up every part of the body.
Meanwhile, public nudity is commonplace in coed saunas and other contexts throughout Europe. So clearly there’s a little room for interpretation on what constitutes “right thinking people in civil society.”
