The breast paradox

Twanging someone's bra strap and telling women to cover up their nipples (when men don't have to) are, in my view, two actions resulting from the same (sexist) attitude: the idea that women's bodies in the public space are somehow always someone else's property, waiting to be regulated, commented on, or touched. It's about claiming ownership of your own body. No, I don't think female nipples should be seen as something inherently sexual. At the same time, I would feel humiliated if a random person twanged my bra strap, because they would be unwantedly encroaching on my personal space, thereby implicitly asserting that decisions about my own body are not mine to make. Twanging a woman's bra strap, and telling her to cover up, are both ways of putting her in her place.

Hence, I don't think there's a paradox at all.

Twanging someone's bra strap and telling women to cover up their nipples (when men don't have to) are, in my view, two actions resulting from the same (sexist) attitude: the idea that women's bodies in the public space are somehow always someone else's property, waiting to be regulated, commented on, or touched. It's about claiming ownership of your own body. No, I don't think female nipples should be seen as something inherently sexual. At the same time, I would feel humiliated if a random person twanged my bra strap, because they would be unwantedly encroaching on my personal space, thereby implicitly asserting that decisions about my own body are not mine to make. Twanging a woman's bra strap, and telling her to cover up, are both ways of putting her in her place.

Hence, I don't think there's a paradox at all.

I would have thought its because sexual offences are the law, and free the nipple is a minority campaign. The law applies to everyone- free the nipple doesn't.

If you snap some girls bra strap - it's largely irrelevant what FTN campaign thinks. It's what you think, what the victim thinks and whether or not the act is inherently sexual. In reality, I can't think of many circumstances where snapping a girl's bra strap would be done in an entirely neutral manner. Also, regardless of what people supporting FTN think - I don't see many situations where having your nipples exposed isn't a sexual statement.

Its easier to illustrate it with grabbing someone's crotch. If you grab someone's crotch in a club - that's likely to be a sexual assault because of the context. If you grab someone's crotch in a rugby scrum - it's much less likely to be so.

So therefore you think the nipple is, and will remain, a sexual organ, and therefore you see it reasonable to view interaction with a bra as sexual assault?

If the female breast wasn't in any way sexual would you still see it as sensible to view it as sexual assault?

I've noticed two things that seem to be coming up in the media a fair amount recently, I have no admit neither of which I agree with.

The first is that twanging someones bra strap is considered sexual assault. Sure, if you start undoing it maybe, or more likely sexual harassment tbh, but how is twanging an item of clothing in any way sexual. By extension does this mean every bully to ever give someone a wedgie is committing sexual assault?

The second is the "free the nipple" campaign, with the aim to desexualise the nipple, and by extension the female breast, and allow it to be on display in public. Personally I'd rather we had equality by no-ones nipple being on display, except for in suitable situations such as a beach. I don't want to be strolling around a city and be bumping against anyone topless though.

I'm curious as to how both of these are being worked towards by the same group of people. If you want twanging a bra to be sexual assault then you must concede that the female breast is a sexual organ. If you want to "free the nipple" then you must concede that twanging someones bra strap has absolutely zero sexual connotation. Hence, the breast paradox.

Do you think either idea is reasonable, and if so which? If you think both are right then please provide an argument as to how they can coexist as ideas.

Nope. I think it depends entirely on context.

If a woman gets her boobs out in front of me because she's feeding her baby - I don't think that's in any way a sexual statement. If a woman is in my flat wearing just plasters over her nipples - that's an entirely sexual statement.

No different to men - if I grab a mans buttocks because I'm in a night club- that's sexual. If I do so in a rugby match- it's not.

However, there are scales of these things, and nipples are more likely to be sexual statements than not.

Twanging is assault if you do it without the other person's permission

Do you think therefore the displaying of ankles in some situations can be sexual, or that stealing someones hat could be sexual assault?

Not in this country. Even if both the attacker and the victim had ankle or hat fetishes, I find it very unlikely that doing either of those things could end up being sexual assault.

Come on, there's almost universal agreement that there is something sexual about nipples and underwear - even though people may disagree as to the extent. Ergo if you are in the territory of something accepted as sexual, you can be in trouble.

My point in the OP thought is that the aim of the "free the nipple" campaign is to desexualise the nipple. If they were to be successful how could they then still try and call sexual assault when someone's bra strap is twanged?

Oh I get that. I'm just saying that what FTN people want is irrelevant. Just because a bunch of people say that breasts shouldn't be sexualised, doesn't mean that the law or public at large has to agree with them.

Mouths are not inherently sexual, but if I walk up to a strange woman and put my tongue in her mouth - that's a sexual assault. I don't see how anyone could argue with that. There are things that you can do that become sexual based on their context.

There are like a million memes about women happily walking around in bikinis, but feeling exposed if they are seen in their underwear - same thing. Context.

So you agree with one argument but not the other? That's pretty much my point, how can someone think both are right?