Free The Nipple

Scroll to see replies

While I'm inclined to agree with you on this, I think context is important.
Someone could make the argument that Page 3 was sexual objectification, whereas someone getting their baps out at the beach shouldn't be seen as controversial because the breasts aren't an inherently sexual bodypart (although that in itself would make Page 3 a non-issue; either breasts are universally sexual [at which point The Scums objectification of them is morally dubious), or they aren't [therefore making said objectification awks for everyone involved]. I can see both sides of the argument).

Though seeing as this is a social issue, it's difficult to see it in such black and white terms. I think the whole point of both movements (Ban Page 3/Free The Nipple) is to remove the way society sees breasts (ie; as purely sexual devices aimed to titillate. Pardon the pun :colone:

). Page 3 definitely sexualised them, and the reason that breasts being out in public is so controversial in some social circles is because of this open sexualisation (not saying that The Scum is the main cause of this "stigma", but they certainly didn't do much to say otherwise).

Apologies for the brackets :h:

Boobs will always be sexual. Just like the male figure will be. Even if it becomes socially acceptable for women to go round topless in situation where men can that doesn't remove the sexual nature of breasts. Just like it is fine for women to walk around in skin tight jeans, it doesn't mean their figure isn't still a sexual aspect.

Humans are sexual creatures and their is nothing wrong with that. You can embrace that and still be against sexism. If stuff like free the nipple is about trying to completely remove the sexual nature of breasts then you are fighting a battle you can't win and are actually missing the point and it becomes a regressive movement, Like an anti-sex movement.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 21

username402722

My opinion is that where it is acceptable for a man to be topless, it should be acceptable for a woman too. Beaches for example.

Recognising there are some places where men should keep their clothes on.

Reply 22

aaronlowe

I was in Africa not to long ago. In the region I was in not all girls covered their breasts. To begin with it was a turnon but then after a few weeks I stopped noticing. It started to become normal. The girls there don't understand how breasts are sexual unfortunately because most of the men don't know how to pleasure them there. So, it's cultural. Where it starts to get ridiculous is when women have conversations about why breasts exist and think they're just there to attract men. The lack of education is rife amongst women and men.

Reply 23

bassbabe

And no doubt the feminists that want to be able to walk around with their saggy tits out are the same ones who will complain about men staring at them and cry rape :rolleyes:

Reply 24

aaronlowe

These days a lot of men have bigger tits that the girls. It's not fair men get to flap about their moobs but girls can't :angry:

Reply 25

Chicken.M.

Original post by Drunk Punx

One of my mates once told me that he brought his girlfriend to orgasm by sucking on her toe. He maintains it, but I'm still not sure if srs...

Reply 26

JD1lla

Original post by aaronlowe

Are you seriously complaining about the lack of education in...Africa?

Reply 27

Drunk Punx

Original post by ChaoticButterfly

Oh of course, I wasn't trying to argue otherwise. Boobs will always be seen as sexual, but I think the point that the advocates of the campaign are trying to get across is that they aren't just sexual, and therefore there is no reason to censor them.

Reply 28

aaronlowe

Original post by JD1lla

Are you seriously complaining about the lack of education in...Africa?

No, I was thinking of the Loose Women TV show in the UK - should have said that explicitly. They actually had an argument of why breasts existed and one of the women claimed they were just to attract men.

Reply 29

username402722

Original post by aaronlowe

Loose Women is not a show whose views should be taken seriously in my view.

Reply 30

aaronlowe

Original post by barnetlad

Loose Women is not a show whose views should be taken seriously in my view.

For exactly the type of view I just relayed. But I bet many women take them seriously and it informs many an empty head.

Reply 31

aaronlowe

Problem is though, freed nipples are not necessarily unharassed nipples :tongue:

Reply 32

SiminaM

I don't think I will ever agree to this 'free the nipple' hysteria tbh.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 33

JD1lla

Original post by SiminaM

I don't think I will ever agree to this 'free the nipple' hysteria tbh.

Posted from TSR Mobile

why

Reply 34

Mackay

Tampons should be free!

Reply 35

MattyR2895

I don't understand this logic of 'breasts aren't inherently sexual'. Who is really the arbiter of what is and isn't sexual? Why can we only consider parts of the body that have evolved to have a clear function in reproduction (eg.the vagina and the penis) sexual? That seems like a strange standard, since pretty much everyone finds certain things other than genitalia sexually attractive, be it a pretty face or a charming personality. We are sexual creatures, therefore the whole of the human body is 'sexual', including the breasts, male or female. If the 'sexualization' of women's breasts is really a social construct, how do feminists explain the many men who 'sexualize' women's feet, with foot fetishes? I don't see many magazines with big pictures of women's feet, like 'yeah, look at those toes'.
Just because certain cultures see women walking around with bare breasts doesn't mean they're 'de-sexualized'. There are still men there (or women) who find them appealing.
Sexuality is completely subjective. Who is anyone to tell me that what I find sexually appealing (eg. Big tits) is wrong, or that I've been brainwashed by the media? Doesn't is seem more plausabe to say that the media noticed that men tend to like big boobs, and so they catered to that large demographic in their advertising?
Wouldn't feminists also have to consede that if I grab a girls tits (or any body part other than the vagina) without her consent, then that is not sexual assault, since tits aren't sexual?
Also, I think if a woman wants to walk around with bare breasts in public, have at it. It's your body. I just don't see why we have to 'de-sexualize' boobs in order to do that.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

Marisaioannou

I love what the campaign stands for. Breasts are a part of our anatomy, it is not up to society to sexualise them but up to the owner of those breasts to decide on that. Why is it that as a women I am shamed for showing my breasts, I am proud of my body and have every right to be. I agree that there are many other important issues around the world concerning feminism but that does not mean we should not continue working against female oppression here.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 37

harrypotter121

Original post by Marisaioannou

go Marisa!!! preach!!

Reply 38

localblackguy

Original post by Marisaioannou

So you would 100% agree with me if I said:

"Penises are a part of our anatomy, it is not up to society to sexualise them but up to the owner of the penis to decide on that. Why is it that as a man I am shamed for showing my penis, I am proud of my body and have every right to be"

Right?

Aside from pointing out the overall faulty logic, you also made one glaring mistake - we are products of both biological and environmental influences, most of our sense of right/wrong or sexual/non-sexual is either already largely determined for us or is determined by the social/cultural norms. We can't each individually decide what is sexualised and what isn't. Just to add though, a large majority of shamers are women who (surprise!) have breasts themselves.