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.

Freethenipple is about women saying

And Page 3 girls had no say in the matter?

I appreciate it this is Wikipedia but in relation to the US it says

" A number of incidents of harassment of nursing mothers which gained media attention prompted a number of U.S. states to act. All 50 states have passed legislation that either explicitly allows women to breastfeed in public, or exempts them from prosecution for public indecency or indecent exposure for doing so.[41][42]"

Had no say in what?

Still, that's where the context comes in - Society says page 3 is fine, but walking topless down a street isn't. Yes the woman chooses to model on page 3, but it's society that's decided what's fine and what isn't.

free the nipple is saying that's wrong, that the woman should get to decide what's fine. If she wants to wander down the street topless, then that's her choice, not society's (just as it is for men)

Free the nipple is not just about breastfeeding, it is about a woman's right to go topless being equal to men's.

Does the intention to sexualise define "porn" anyway?

Still photography was how I made my bread and butter for years, from food to weddings to nudes. There were (and probably still are from what I see) two axioms of nude 'art' photography. The first was that the ability for a breast to be seen as 'art' by a viewer, rather than porn, was dependant on cup size and that to go over C made it increasingly difficult to 'de-sexualise' an image, if that was the intention. If the intention was to create something quite erotic then breast size was not as important. The second axiom was that an image could reduce apparent sexualisation through the use of props, pose and lighting, which is why untrained people see a lot of otherwise superiorly crappy nudes as 'art' simply because of the weird lighting, props and pose that went into making it.

God DWH you could be talking about livestock or vegetables there. The idea that cup size determines eroticism or how "sexual" an image is shows how much women are just seen as objects.

Have a look at Alea Chapin's paintings here. Plenty of those women have breast sizes far larger than a C but the images are not sexual because the artist is a woman portraying other women as people rather than as objects with measurements.

God DWH you could be talking about livestock or vegetables there.

Unfortunately that is exactly the case, in the limited scope of what I am talking about, as consumption patterns trump all. Produce what the client wants is the Law for survival, same as any industry. Plenty of good photographers take photos they would prefer to take differently (or not at all) but if the magazines do not want the copy (magazines that women buy, not 'lad' mags) then the copy is not used. A commercial photographer has limited latitude- please the client or risk the contract.

What you link is fine art, which is great in a fine art magazine. Perhaps it might appear in a more regular womans magazine in one article in one month in a year. A Hero flag waving month of warts and all realism. There are volumes written about the 'realistic' marketing approach of Dove products. Why is there not more realist marketing like that? Because it is considered that Dove crafted the 'realist' niche and owns it and its not big enough for anyone else to market in it. Ultimately the images you link, while wonderful, are not images most women want to see regularly, otherwise magazines would be filled already with such images.

You mention livestock, to me its a pity that more cage eggs are sold than free range (which is what I buy). But if they sell more from a cage what is my relevance in society but as a minority consumer? What fast food outlet in the western world sells free range chicken with their chips?

In fine art photography almost anything is possible. You can see it in galleries and fine art magazines. But its also also interesting to me that what you link are labelled as 'paintings', not photos. The abstraction, relevance and meaning of the nude in painting (even photo realist painting) Vs photography and its attendant attitude of being 'much more real' is a huge book in itself. Did the artist make those paintings from a photograph? Why not simply use the photograph, too real for the tastes of viewers?

Also, another thing, is the difference between intent and context of the photographer and how the image is subsequently seen. Just because a photographer has context and intent for their image there is no connection inherent in how an audience will see it.

I'm not denying there's a market for certain photos DWH. I understand how it works, I work in a related field.

My point was that it is significant that these "standards" exist at all - they reflect very starkly how women are seen - as objects with measurements. It's telling that you compare it choices about livestock, as though how we see women and how that is exploited commercially is just an unfortunate side effect of the free market. That's not how I see it. It might suit the market to portray all black people as ganstas and drug dealers but I don't want to live in a world that follows that aspect of the market blindly without questioning it. I also note that you pointedly say it's women's magazines that buy these images - why is that? Is that to imply that it's women who are oppressing other women?

"Did the artist make those paintings from a photograph? Why not simply use the photograph, too real for the tastes of viewers?"
I may be misunderstanding these questions, but the obvious answer to me is that she's an artist and her medium is painting rather than photography so that's why she didn't use a photograph.

They are aren't they Buffy? I emailed her to tell her how I much I liked them and she emailed me back! Swoon

Dove's 'real women' branding is just another way of persuading women we don't look attractive enough without purchasing cosmetics, btw.

I disagree, but thats probably a topic for another thread. What you are talking about is one pillar of how products are marketed to women, insecurity. IMO Dove bases its campaign on a different pillar of gender specific marketing, empathy. Though ultimately their goal is to convince women to buy their products its a much less negative approach, even if the empathy is ultimately just a construct for the sake of sales.

I liked the French dove ad about negative self talk.

Dove are trying to sell product, like everyone.

"The first was that the ability for a breast to be seen as 'art' by a viewer, rather than porn, was dependant on cup size and that to go over C made it increasingly difficult to 'de-sexualise' an image, if that was the intention."

This sums up for me exactly why we need both FreeTheNipple and NoPage3. Why should you have to de-sexualise a body part which is not functionally used for sex?

Women's ankles used to be covered up because they were sexualised. Now I can show my ankles, knees, shoulders and all sorts of body parts whenever I want. It'd be lovely if one day in the future all this fuss over breasts was considered positively Victorian and we could see breasts for what they are - just another part of a woman's body.

I'm guessing your C cup subjects had never been on a bra intervention thread...
Anyway! In fact, aren't women's breasts typically at their biggest cup size when breast feeding?

The reason why the women in Callindana's picture are not sexualised is because they are all post menopausal. The breasts are shriveled and saggy an indicator of a women who has been through the menopause and unable to bare children. Adult humans are not usually sexually attracted to other humans that look like they are too old or too young to procreate.

Humans are usually sexually attracted to other humans who look fertile, fit and healthy as those people are likely to produce healthy offspring. None of the women in Callindana's photos have any of those traits. Therefore, it is easy to paint these women naked without sexualising them at all. It would have been much more of a challenge to paint the same out of shape post menopausal women in a sexualised fashion.

It also would have been much more difficult to paint fit, healthy, fertile women in their prime in the same poses without sexualising them as these are attributes that humans find inherently sexually attractive. It has nothing to do with "a woman portraying other women as people rather than as objects with measurements". The picture is not sexualised because the women do not have traits that the humans species have evolved to find sexually appealing.

Hi Jessica! Ankles were never 'sexualised' per se, but rather one of many Victorian upper class customs in view to modesty and decorum.

www.ehow.com/info_8644786_social-restrictions-victorian-era.html

I seriously doubt anybody ever got an erection at the sight of an ankle. Although there are some people with random fetishes out there.

As for the breasts "not being functionally used for sex", the nipples, areola and indeed the whole breast are very much erogenous zones for women and men. And if done correctly should be incorporated into sex, with mutual consent of course. Although, I do agree that men and women should be subjected to the same laws regarding decency and fully support the 'Free teh Nipple' campaign.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erogenous_zone#Chest

I suggest you look again Eclipse. Not all the women are post menopausal.

Hi Yoni! You are correct in pointing out that women's breasts are largest when lactating. Although, women are unique in that they are the only mammals that develop breasts at puberty and not just when lactating. Due to this it is likely that women's breasts are used as a mating strategy, much like a peacocks feathers to attract a mate. Biological and evolutionary science posits that women's breasts act as an indicator of a fertile women as it differentiates them from prepubescent girls. Also, even though they are not full of milk, and are in fact just fatty deposits, it would have given men the illusion of being full of milk, therefore an indicator of a healthy mate that would be able to give ample nourishment to children. As pointed out earlier, saggy shriveled breasts as in Calindana's photo are an indicator of an older women that has gone through, or soon to go through the menopause and unable to bare children. So these kinds of breasts would not be sexualised by humans.

I guess the standing brunette woman second from the right in the first picture and the woman on the far left in the second picture are more than likely not post menopausal. Although I think the general point still stands.

Lucy in Lucy and Lazlo is definitely not post menopausal. Your point makes no sense, unless you find a young woman playing with her child 'sexual'