FreeTheNipple vs NoPage3

[MN164]

How do we square these two apparently feminist debates?

Can "choice" really be the distinction that unites these causes? There is a strong case that models making a living have a choice (not just page 3 or porn but also "art" photography).

I'm confused. Help.

Thanks Buffy. I think you've cleared up the main point for me. It's not just the "choice" but also the intention. There is no "intention" to sexualise breastfeeding in public, but there is on Page 3 (or indeed porn). Does the intention to sexualise define "porn" anyway?

Setting breastfeeding aside and turning to general human appearance in society, I think most men and women feel embarrassment or even ashamed of their bodies.

Do you agree?

I think it might be deeply rooted in the history of church lead patriarchal morality, with modern roots re-enforcing it with advertising and consumerism.

PS - I remember Sarah Pascoe on a panel show putting forward the idea that all women should go naked all the time so that men would be so distracted as to be unable to function and leave the house thus putting women and gay men in charge. World peace ensues. Did anyone else see this?

In both cases, it's a male-led society that's deciding when and where breasts can and should be seen. So, young pert breasts in a "newspaper," posed for the enjoyment of men = good, ordinary breasts being used for their actual purpose and not for the enjoyment of men = bad. Why should men decide what happens with breasts when they don't even have any?

Breasts are functional body parts. They serve the very important purpose of keeping young infants alive. And yet, women are made to feel ashamed and embarrassed at using them for that purpose because they're "sexual" (ie there for men - we shouldn't make men look at them unless we're doing it for their benefit rather than for the benefit of a helpless baby). It's a fucked up situation.

I don't think anyone is really that bothered about women walking down the street topless, for now. The freethenipple thing is about ownership, it's about women saying "you know what, these are my fucking breasts and I can show them or not show them as I bloody well please. If you think they're too "sexual" be seen in public, that's your problem." It's about women saying "no I won't accept that page 3 is a wonderful British institution that we must all smile benignly at while women are thrown out of restaurants for showing a tiny bit of boob while feeding a baby."

There is nothing inherently wrong with a woman posing topless for a photo. Breasts are lovely, the human form is lovely, looking at it is no more "wrong" than looking at a flower or a sunset.

What is wrong is the sneery, misogynistic idea that breasts are shameful and must be kept hidden away, even when a baby absolutely needs them, until men decide they want to ogle them in a paper and then it's fine, in fact it's more than fine, men will actively campaign to make sure they see those breasts. It takes agency and ownership away from women by implying that men get to decide what is right and wrong and their wishes and needs are what is important.

Cailindana

I think you have also made it much clearer to me, but I'm going to split hairs a bit to better understand the position.

"you know what, these are my fucking breasts and I can show them or not show them as I bloody well please. If you think they're too "sexual" be seen in public, that's your problem."

A person should be allowed to show their body (including nipples or indeed be completely naked) in public as it is theirs to show.

The intent of the person maybe to celebrate the human form, it may be for their own gratification or it maybe to draw attention to themselves - however, the intention is not relevant. The person reserves the right to offend others and not take responsibility for that offense.

I find extreme counter examples help me to understand the basis for reasonable behaviour - sorry if you think my example is idiotic ......

A couple have sex in a public place - say a park on a warm sunny day. Sex is a natural "everyday" act clearly by consent between two adults.

Should sex in public also be "illegal" and why, given that it is just as natural as breastfeeding or naturism?

I'm trying to tease out where there is a line to be crossed and why we draw the line there. Also, when we draw the line, do we actually increase the power of patriarchy in some way by giving ammunition for oppression?

In the case of drawing lines, the most basic thing IMO is that the line applies to everyone. So, women can't show nipples, fine, then page 3 must be banned and men must be prevented from walking down the street topless. All public areas must provide private areas for breastfeeding (NOT toilets). Or, alternatively, anyone can show nipples, within reason.
Public sex is banned for everyone, men and women alike, so at least it's applied fairly. Whether it's necessary or worth banning it is an ethical and philosophical question rather than a feminist one. Feminism looks mainly at the sexual equality of social mores and the mores around nipples are entirely sexist.

I should add that breastfeeding is essential for the immediate survival of a baby whereas sex can wait so the comparison isn't quite right. Someone insisting on public sex would be doing so just to make a point whereas women want to breastfeed in public so that they aren't imprisoned for months at home with their young babies.

I'm breastfeeding my baby and so far I've had a few dirty looks from strangers, been told by my pils to go into another room at their house and had my 40 year old bil walk in that room, see what I was doing, say "Eurghh" and run out.

My fil is the type of man who will take his top off as soon as there's a hint of sunshine. This man will not look in my direction when I'm breastfeeding, even though my clothing is arranged so nothing is on show.

Breasts have been so sexualised by things like page 3, when they are used for their natural function of feeding a baby people get freaked out. To me there is no contradiction with supporting both no more page 3 and free the nipple. They both are essentially asking for women's breasts to not be viewed as a sexual plaything for heterosexual men, but as a body part belonging to the individual they are attached to.

I should be able to take my top off in the sunshine the same way fil does, without any eyebrows being raised. It's just the top half of my body. If you get aroused by that, it's not my problem. I should definitely be able to feed my baby without anyone giving a shit apart from perhaps thinking, 'how nice, that baby is being nourished and has stopped crying.'

With your public sex example, sex is not a necessity for that couple in the way being fed is for the breastfed baby. A fairer, more logical comparison would be to compare breastfeeding to someone eating a sandwich. You would not expect that person to eat under a towel or in a private room (I imagine). Also legally it is child abuse to expose a minor to pornographic/ sexual material. If two consenting adults were having sex in a park, a non-consenting child could very easily witness that.

In Victorian times it was considered indecent for a woman to show her ankles in public. I think that's a good comparison to make with regards to free the nipple. We wouldn't look twice at a woman's ankles now, they are just part of her body.

Booboo

"They both are essentially asking for women's breasts to not be viewed as a sexual plaything for heterosexual men, but as a body part belonging to the individual they are attached to."

That nails it (again).

I'm still not sure about the sex example. I can totally see the "need to feed" point, but by the same token, there is no "need" to be topless, however the campaign is asking for the "right" to be topless. In many places this is considered illegal just as public sex would be.

I don't want my kids to see sex in a public place, but I'm questioning myself as to "why" I don't want them to see it - what is so awful about sex that we must shield our children from it and make it the "taboo" that it is? I am keen that they understand it - the mechanics of it, the reason people do it, the purpose and pleasure of it, the risks of it ..... just don't look at anyone else doing it .......

Perhaps I'm asking a different question now which isn't really to do with feminism, but moral standards?

I'm still not sure about the sex example. I can totally see the "need to feed" point, but by the same token, there is no "need" to be topless, however the campaign is asking for the "right" to be topless. In many places this is considered illegal just as public sex would be.

No, there is no need to be topless but the point with that is that men can whip off their top when they go swimming for example, in an equal society women should be afforded the same right.

As for the sex thing, originally you brought that up to compare with breastfeeding. It is not analogous to that, nor to going topless in public. I do not think it is relevant to your op.

Not wanting children to see sex isn't a question of taboo. As adults we can consent to sex, children cannot. I do not think that keeping sexual activity private is making it taboo. I wouldn't have sex in front of my mum or my friends. It is, for most people, a private act between a couple. If you want to be viewed or watch other people and everyone involved is a consenting adult that's fair enough, children cannot consent.

I think a better analogy than sex would be having a wee - something we all need to do, sometimes urgently, but which it's far more socially acceptable for men to do in public than women.

I think a better analogy than sex would be having a wee - something we all need to do, sometimes urgently, but which it's far more socially acceptable for men to do in public than women

Actually in the 6 months of my traineeship I spent assisting the clerk in the District Court of a Scottish city I dealt with 100s of guilty pleas and fines for urinating in public. It was, and I assume still is, a statutory criminal offence under one of the local government acts.

Still I'm not saying public urination isn't an offence but that men do it all the flipping time.

And I don't agree that makes it be seen as acceptable.

Ah yes. I'd missed the "consent" point. I think that's lays my foolish public sex example to rest.

Re public sex there was a furious AIBU as to whether sex was in public if it were in your own back garden which has a hedge screening you at ground floor level but you could be seen by anyone looking out of an upstairs window of an adjoining house, or any child climbing a tree in an adjoining garden.

Opinion was divided. I was in the "public and not acceptable " camp.

I don't really get it. Most #freethenipple pics aren't breastfeeding at all, they are just pics of topless women just like Page 3. How come freethenipple gets feminist approval but Page 3 does not.

Is the feminist position that it's ok for a woman to take her top off as long as she doesn't make money from it?

Mepoff, if you read my earlier posts it'll explain my take on it. Basically it's about who is deciding to show the nipples and in what context. It's about ownership.

Mepoff is a troll, Cailin. See his other posts.

Ah, I was wondering why he asked such a stupid question.

Not sure that is a particularly strong argument for 2 reasons. Does it make any difference from the point of view of the person ogling the naked breast?

And Page 3 girls are also deciding to show their nipples. They aren't being forced to. "it's the patriarchy wot made me do it " doesn't really cut it as far as I'm concerned, nor I imagine with them.

I don't think it was a stupid question. But possibly I'm stupid too. Both Page 3 and, I assume some other web site with naked breasts ( I don't know as I haven't seen it), involve women voluntarily showing bare breasts. The only difference seems to be one is deliberately for sexual titillation and one isn't but might still cause it.

Ok, I'll explain it one more time. Men get aroused by breasts, woopee doo, good for them. We live in a society where it is acceptable for women to show their breasts on page 3, on porn, in any situation where breasts are being presented as sexual objects, for the pleasure of men. But if women want to breastfeed in public or walk down the street topless on a hot day, that's considered unacceptable. Photos of female celebrities topless (such as Kate Middleton) are used to shame and embarrass them. Overall the message is, men get to decide when breasts are acceptable or not. Freethenipple is about some saying, actually I'll decide about my own body, thanks. Who cares if men find it arousing? It's not about them, for once.

Free the nipple isn't just about taking your top off it's a political statement because it is still illegal for women to breastfeed publicly in 35 states in the US (I got this figure from the free the nipple website). It's about censoring women's bodies.