The line between 'slut-shaming' and 'put some clothes on'

[lifesagas]

I've been mulling over this for the past few weeks and wonder if I'm in the wrong?.

With Kim Kardashian and the several others over the last few weeks posting naked/nearly naked pictures and then even more as a 'stand against slut-shaming' response to the previous pictures.

I don't post on social media (FB, twitter etc) and I absolutely object to any woman being called a slut because of what she is or isn't wearing.

But I DO think - I don't want to see your tits or vulva. You have a great body and are very beautiful but I don't want to see quite so much of your body.

I do think you're doing a diservice to yourself and other women by posting those pictures. I don't think you're a feminist or making a stand against the patriarchy by doing it - in fact I think the opposite.

My dilemma is this - does that make me just as bad as the 'shamers' ?. I'm still saying that another woman shouldn't be exposing her body publicly in such an extreme way aren't I? Even if I'm not attaching misogynistic words.

[oliviaclottedcream]

Pop culture is full of scantily clad women's bodies though. Take a look at Rhaianna or Beyonce's videos. They look to me like they're in control of what they're doing. And isn't that the whole point about the Male Gaze? As I remember learning about it anyway?

The Bananarama comparison is interesting, but they did flaunt it bit towards the end of their popularity didn't they? Not with boobs and bums though I admit.

It seems to me there are far more female acts today though in 2016, all vying for public attention and to outdo each other. They seem to have gone about as 'daring' as they can.

[ABetaDad1]

Its interesting that this phenomenon has now become a 'thing' among male pop stars and sports players.

Even male rugby players now seem to do the obligatory tastefully placed rugby ball nude photo routine.

Its tawdry, its demeaning and it really shouts 'desperate to be noticed at any price'.

Just keep your kit on lads and get on with doing your day job (i.e singing or playing sport) really well.

[loveyoulikeaplanet]

Vestal - KK is posting these naked pictures herself on her social media.

This week, in response to 'slut-shamers' Kim Kardashian and the beautiful model Emily Ratajkowski have posted a double -selfie with them both topless but with black bars over their boobs and both giving viewers of the pictures (anyone on their twitter/FB/instagram pages so millions) 'the finger'.

Emily went as far as to post 'even if being sexualised by society's gaze is demeaning, there must be a space where women can still be sexual when they want to be'.

I won't put another woman down but WTF? I know there are numerous spaces where women can be sexual. We didn't have all this instant social media even 15 years ago and many women were still sexual. Putting a picture of your tits (even with a black bar) isn't reclaiming sexuality or making a statement or being body-confident. It's distributing a picture of your tits in the most widespread way possible in a culture where celebrity tits (and often vulvas) are ten a penny.

I really don't understand what statement they think they're making or 'reclaiming'.

I feel terribly old (at 38). My first popular female celebs were Bananarama and they wore dungarees and still every bloke I knew wanted to shag them!. Madonna pushed boundaries later with her Sex book and stage shows but we weren't subjected to pictures of her genitals every day and her 'Sex' book provoked an enormous and shocked response. (We may have been bombarded with social media pics of Madonnas genitals if it was a 'thing' then though to be honest).

But even if Bananarama or Madonna had social media and filled it with pics of their tits; at least they were really famous and had 'done' something creative. They would have a persona or definition outside of their physical body.

The majority of the 'can't keep clothes on' celebs are famous just for that. God, I sound like my Gran.

[RudeElf]

So she does this by publishing photos on the Internet, which can be downloaded, stored and viewed by anyone for as long as digital photo viewing technology is in existence?

Yes, that is exactly what she has done. The difference being that this is a photo she chose to publish. The same opportunities are there for the photos/videos taken and published without her consent to be downloaded, stored and viewed by anyone for as long as digital photo viewing technology is in existence? they dont just stay on the photographers camera.

I hope a time will come when women wont have to make such a choice

She didnt have to. She could easily have not taken photos of herself. Either way the non consenual ones would still exist and still be published. It wasnt an "either or" situation. She wasnt taking her consensual photo to prevent the non consensual ones happening. They'll exist regardless.

[vesuvia]

RudeElf wrote - "Perhaps she feels like this her way of taking control of who sees her undressed."

So she does this by publishing photos on the Internet, which can be downloaded, stored and viewed by anyone for as long as digital photo viewing technology is in existence?

This highlights what an unappealing damage limitation and rationalisation process faces women such as Kim K. They can end up allegedly "choosing" to publish naked or near-naked photos of the themselves on the Internet because it is apparently preferable to having other people publish photos of them without permission. I hope a time will come when women won't have to make such a choice.

[oliviaclottedcream]

Me? No

[Bonkerz]

www.facebook.com/iloveluisa/videos/1141671839198006/


Are you Luisa?

[VestalVirgin]

I think no worse of prominent women for taking their clothes off.

I am, however, rather annoyed with the media who publish those pictures.

There are at least two people involved there. The decision to show photos of herself naked to the world is not one made by Kim Kardashian on her own. (Because I am pretty sure it's illegal on Facebook.) She needs to find media that are, for some reason or the other, convinced that people want to know about, and see those pictures.


While we are at it, I don't want to see Putin topless, either. Just put some clothes on!

[oliviaclottedcream]

What of gay women enjoying woman/woman porn?

[Theydontknowweknowtheyknow]

I think the male gaze has become the default for how we see things and it's encouraged us to sexualise women and girls' bodies to an unhealthy degree.

We don't have the same reaction to a naked male torso, not because we don't find it attractive but because we haven't had that image associated with sex and rammed down our throats as much.

I

[oliviaclottedcream]

The male Gaze I've read that a growing number of women are turning to man-on-man action to get them going.... Apparently !!

[RudeElf]

I dont know. I'm sort of in a place in my life now where i am sick to the back teeth of women's bodies and images of their bodies being used without their consent and i'm kind of in a "fuck you" frame of mind where if a woman chooses to undress and draw male attention then more power to her. That decision (being publicly naked) has been taken from too many of us. (I was secretly filmed during sex) KK was violated when the video of her having sex was publicised. Perhaps she feels like this her way of taking control of who sees her undressed. Its her decision, she is in charge of when and how it happens. Of course i am coming at this from a biased (from experience) position.

[BreakingDad77]

I think theres a difference by posting something semi naked to make a point that being semi naked shouldn't matter to doing it purely for base adulation.

[Sadik]

"I don't think it's slut shaming to say that I don't wish to see a woman performing her sexually for the patriarchy."
^^This

I'd say the issue of men underdressing is completely different - actually, I don't want to see a bloke wandering around naked, because it has all sorts of power overtones.
Which does sort of lead me to opposite reactions -
woman wandering around with no clothes on at women-only festival = all good
man wandering around with no clothes on at mixed festival = in-your-face nakedness (but mainly because it's not an environment where women are likely to be comfortably naked)

[JanTheJam]

Agh just lost a post.

I don't think it's slut shaming to say that I don't wish to see a woman performing her sexually for the patriarchy.

I'm not bothered by women at the beach topless or breastfeeding or other normal non sexual contexts.

But I don't think that being naked for the purpose of drawing the male gaze is a feminist act. And it feels like a sexual act and sexual acts are (usually) private. It's not "slutty" to do sexual acts in public, but it's certainly not something I wish to view.

Men aren't sexualised to the degree that women are. I don't think they are compatible issues.

[PalmerViolet]

But surely women are hurt by their continued sexualisation? And slebs taking their kit off is part of that IMO.

I don't disagree at all. I suppose it's the difference between how the arguments are phrased.

[JanTheJam]

(Lurker and some time poster who has name changed recently)

Lots of good points. But I don't understand how you just "stop" thinking that women removing their clothes for patriarchal approval is problematic for feminism. How do you dress it up as good for feminism? Is it just double think?

I'm not being sarky. DH was brought up in a deeply religious family and brought up to believe that homosexuality (for eg) was wrong. He no longer thinks this - in a nutshell, who cares who consenting adults love as long as no one gets hurt.

But surely women are hurt by their continued sexualisation? And slebs taking their kit off is part of that IMO.

[BarbarianMum]

I worried for a long time that feeling their should be boundaries in what people can wearin public was not a feminist stance. But actually, I feel the same about both sexes- I don't want to see your arse/genitals and - at the other extreme - I do want to see your face. I also don't think being near naked in public is particularly desirable unless you are on a beach or at the swimming pool. So I guess I'm an anti-religious prude .

[PalmerViolet]

So if a woman shows her body she's doing a disservice to other women?

What if, every week, a man kills a woman? Is he doing a disservice to other men?

Excellent points, however, I believe we're only allowed to see men as individuals and women as a homogenous group.

[oliviaclottedcream]

I agree RudeElf. Though not 100%.

Personally I can't watch violence on screen. It makes me physically sick. I'm haunted with nightmares and even get mild panic attacks after seeing it. So I make a point of avoiding Q Tarantino's movies, the Sopranos', The Wire etc... I don't though, wish to see those things banned or censored in any way and I fully accept that those movies/TV series, play an important role in pop' culture. There are all kinds of arguments that they are a force for discussion, debate and serious thought on the subjects and issues they highlight. But I can't bare to see it - so I don't look.

[RudeElf]

I have no interest in conor mcgregor yet i still see him everywhere in his pants. The difference is no-one has sexualised his body or the work he does with it so its ok, no-one says "put it away conor". By continuing to whinge about KK and the like "having their baps out" you are choosing to continue the sexualisation of women's bodies. How about you decide just not to care? Someone is naked or nearly naked- so? The less the world as a whole reacts to it the sooner it stops being an issue. If you want to see less of the human body, stop providing a reaction when you do. No audience= no benefit in putting on the show.

[MrsJayy]

Thats the thing i have no interest in KK but yet i still see her bits everywhere. I think women in the public domain like Kiim start to panic thinking their popularity is going to fade so pull stunts like thisi remeber when Paris hilton was at her height she did a playboy(i think). I dont think its like that for men women have to be young and hot men can be middle aged and hot

[oliviaclottedcream]

I'm thinking of 1 particular publication which came out around 1990, it was called 'For Women Only', I think that's right?? It didn't sell, not to women anyway. It did however have a novelty appeal for gay men, (which didn't last long). The novelty of a 'mainstream' soft-men-porn publication, available on the top shelf of most newsagents, wore off for gay men, who ultimately preferred the publications that were specifically targeted at them..

There have been other soft-male - porn publications I'm sure...

[MephistophelesApprentice]

It is slut shaming, just from a different set of moral arguments.

[TheSparrowhawk]

So if a woman shows her body she's doing a disservice to other women?

What if, every week, a man kills a woman? Is he doing a disservice to other men?