6 ms·

For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong: Look at an even more women-oppressing culture such as that of Afghanistan

For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong: Look at an even more women-oppressing culture such as that of Afghanistan under the Taliban. Women are required to cover their faces in public. Why? For "modesty." What it boils down to is that if women show their faces it could have a negative effect on men (sexual attraction). A lot of people where are shaming her for being essentially immodest in her quest for female empowerment. A face is not immodest. A boob is not immodest. It is not sexualized because it is just a body part. It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob, but a man's who is doing the sexualization. A baby does not sexualize the boob (it's food). They get conditioned to it by society and culture as they grow older (a culture that sexualizes it). Sub out face in Afghanistan with boob in America and you'll see it's the same picture. While we should pat ourselves on the back for being so progressive as to allow women to show their faces in public, we haven't quite gotten to the point where it's ok to show boobs in public. And yes, some women prefer to wear burkas, just as some women prefer to hide their boobs in public. The point is that those restrictions on women shouldn't be dictated by the actions or effects they have on men. Instead, men should either change their viewpoints or control their own sexualization so that women don't have to accommodate. These immodest views come from those who sexualize women, and because that's out of the control of women so they should not be forced to accommodate something out of their control.

sul_tasto 5y ago
I hear what you’re saying and I understand your points regarding men. At the same time, at least in the US, I think it’s important to acknowledge that a lot of judgmental criticism directed at women comes from other women.
- rhizome31 5y ago
  I think this is acknowledged by any serious feminist. Women can be sexist just as men can be feminist.
cmsj 5y ago
Extremely well said. Thank you.
SexyCyborg 5y ago
Well said
feupan 5y ago
> It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob I think you’re trying to rewrite the books that mention erogenous zones. Go read them instead. Boobs are sexual. Having said that, sexuality is not the problem; prudeness is. A vagina could be sexual and still be fine to be uncovered, as it is/was in some cultures.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  Neither sexuality or prudeness should be the problem, rather the aggression. Display of genitals is seen as a gesture of aggression or dominance, not just in Humans. That's what distinguishes nude breasts from nude genitalia. And it's a rather more pronounced problem with male genitalia, we're not equal in that regard. Some cultures do allow them being uncovered, but I think experts could still tell us that there are some rules to all of that. And these cultures are rather small and rare.
- lucian1900 5y ago
  Lips are also an erogenous zone.
lelanthran 5y ago
Yeah, sub out boobs with genitals in your argument, and replace men/man with women/woman and see if your argument is still sensible[1] when women complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia. You're complaining that men are the problem because women are the target, but I'm pretty certain a significant number of women also complain when a venue has unexpected partial female nudity. [1] Every culture draws the line at different points. Turning it into a "men are the problem" conclusion, while being wildly incorrect, is also hilariously sexist to both sexes. Edit your post to demean non-binaries as well and you'll have a hat-trick!
- op00to 5y ago
  Breasts are not genitalia. At least where I live in the US, there is no law against women being topless.
  - sriram_malhar 5y ago
    Most states in the US have indecent exposure laws. Some explicitly speak of breasts, others coyly cover them under "private parts". https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/indecent-exposure-laws-by-state.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/indecent-exposur...
    - chrischen 5y ago
      Yea but those laws are the manifestation of cultural mores. It used to be illegal for black people to vote so laws shouldn't be held up as universal rules of what should be right. I think the important bit is that breasts are not genitalia, and men can expose their breasts. At least for actual genitalia, no humans of any gender can legally expose them in public! That is at least fair.
- jraph 5y ago
  But it is still sensible with the replacement. In an environment where it's normal, there are no problems. I experienced such an environment myself, I was (surprisingly?) not bothered by this in such a setting and women there neither. Women may complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia in a setting where it is not normal / can be seen as / is an assault. Intents matter, too. If you point your middle finger, the finger is still a body part but you are doing something offensive because you intend to insult someone.
fxtentacle 5y ago
I agree with you on the moral part. But it seems odd to me that you're ignoring the fact that we are talking about a faceless amoral corporation here. Most likely, a prudish approach to breasts is simply good for business. That's why advertisers like it. And that's why Google has a hard time selling ads for this video. And that's why Google's algorithms demonetized it. Also, a lot of people in the US were upset about US companies bending to Chinese demands. But China is a huge market. Sacrificing your morals to gain 1.4 bio potential consumers is the correct decision if you're a die-hard capitalist. We live in a culture that allows the profit margin alone to dictate almost all moral decisions. I'm not surprised that this has led to questionable morals ...
3np 5y ago
Just want to point out that many Western countries and cultures don't share this hysteria and shaming around nakedness or female empowerment. Which doesn't mean that gendered power structures don't exist or that you see naked boobs everywhere in the summer city. Showing naked bodies in various contexts on public television is not controversial in many Western countries.
- tsol 5y ago
  And not all countries share then same culture of embracing nakedness. It's odd how they never get mentioned. Their views are valid as well, whether you agree or not. It's differing social mores. Defining what social rules are acceptable and what aren't (and hint hint it's our rules that are the good ones) seems like another way of dismissing foreign cultures, which unfortunately feels like an an age old coming from the west
  - 3np 5y ago
    Of course. I'd argue that even expressions not embraced should still by default tolerated, as opposed to banned, censored, or demonetized. I can't say I know of a "perfect" nation in this sense, but there's absolutely varying degrees of range between "embraced ideas" and "accepted expressions". Both the USA and Afghanistan rank particularly low in an international context, there. My main point with the comment you're replying to is that either way, the idiosyncrasies presented by GP as "Western" are more American, or at least anglo-christian (in lack of a better fuzzy word).
bayesian_horse 5y ago
I think there must still be some restrictions. Topless nudity is on the verge for me. The only reason why I think there is a case to be made is that so many people around the world DO find it offensive. But that's still a weak argument. Showing primary sexual organs in my opinion is not a question and shouldn't be tolerated in many venues. It is a form of aggression in almost every culture. Even some hunter gatherers who walk around with genitals visible often have some way of making it less offensive. Very rare exceptions...
- chrischen 5y ago
  The issue here isn't about sex at all or sexualization. Sexualization is given as the reason because that's all men can see breasts as. If you look at it from a dog's point of view, or a baby's point of view, it's a source of food or just another thing and you may start to wonder what the big deal is with making breasts bigger or even showing them. The issue of contention here is that women have to adjust their behavior/physical appearance over some non genitalia body parts because it happens to induce sexualization in some men, and men don't have to cover that same body part. What if the majority of people were sapio-sexuals instead of breast-sexuals? Do I need to start dumbing down my HN posts so that I don't be perceived as immodest? Given the diversity of sexual preferences where do I draw the line of accommodating others' sexualization boundaries? For the record I agree with you on genitalia, because at least both men and women are not allowed to show them. But breasts? It is not genitalia—it is not even used in the act of sex (normally)!
  - nihilius 5y ago
    Breasts are a secodary sex organ. And i dont know how you prefer your intercourse, but i happily fondle with the breasts of my wife during sex. If you break down sex to just reproduction, ofc they are only needed to feed the baby. But culturally the are sexual organs and erotic. So its normal in my (european) culture to hide breasts (at least the nipples) from public. Edit: I would like to add that its not okay to demonetize Naomi Wus 3D Bust Video. Thats another discussion and i think we are on par here.
jevoten 5y ago
> For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong As opposed to the sexually liberated cultures of Asia, India, or the Middle East? > The point is that those restrictions on women shouldn't be dictated by the actions or effects they have on men. Instead, men should either change their viewpoints or control their own sexualization so that women don't have to accommodate them. What is this mirror universe where men recoil at the unclad female form? Please direct your complaints either at puritanism in general, or Google and their advertisers in particular. I certainly don't feel accommodated by this demonetization.
- chrischen 5y ago
  With the exception of India those other places don't speak English. My comment was targeted at the predominantly Western culture of the HN audience, which I myself am a part of. > What is this mirror universe where men recoil at the unclad female form? That's great that you don't, but the point is not that men recoil at the female form, it's that men are dictating rules on women to help them control their own urges. Again, burkas were invented because men wanted women to be more modest, and to help prevent sins such as womanizing and sexualization. Both of those "sins" are predominantly committed by men towards women so it is a problem rooted in men, but solved by adjusting women's behavior. Even if some women prefer to wear burkas, or agree that it is good to be modest for some reason, that does not mean all women should now be required to do so.
  - jevoten 5y ago
    > men are dictating rules on women to help them control their own urges. Which is why movements to ban porn enjoy wide support among Western men...
lvl100 5y ago
- SexyCyborg 5y ago
  Oh come on...
- lkramer 5y ago
  She seems capable of doing both. Especially if by body you mean boundaries.
labster 5y ago
Well said. Whoa, whoa. Is that why so many macho men can’t wear a face mask? Do face masks emasculate men? Because if they’re being told what to wear, to cover up their face, it’s being treated like a woman. Except it’s so completely not that. It suddenly makes more sense to me that people are so irrational about the mask and calling it “freedom” while they casually shed virus particles (micro-scale microaggressions), because it’s this weird cultural/emotional response.
- numpad0 5y ago
  Could that be why mask mandates are not as big of a deal in China influenced regions of East Asia, because macho-ism culture isn’t as big as well…
naasking 5y ago
> It is not sexualized because it is just a body part. It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob, but a man's who is doing the sexualization. I agree with most of your comment, but I just want to point out that women are also harsh judges of other women who don't fit cultural norms in how they dress or behave. It's not just men sexualizing women and trying to cut them out if they don't fit, it's also women policing other women in this way.
- igetspam 5y ago
  Ever stop to consider why? What compels people to shun those that don't look like them or adhere to their standards? Perhaps a tradition of oppression an subconscious jealousy about the display of freedom by doing something atypical? Women can be misogynists too. We don't have a monopoly on that. We as a collective value conformity because it keeps people in line and doesn't threaten our existing architecture. Things that deviate from norms draw attention and inspire discussions like this. Too many people thinking about coloring outside the lines and then more will do it. If we didn't indoctrinate our kids at the start, we'd have a higher chance for more uniform distribution of power. More people would be able to achieve success, which would raise the floor and make the ceiling not feel so high. Those on top would feel like they're losing because the gap would shrink and the perceived height from the top would be lower. Can't have that so we say things like "boys will boys" to dismiss shit behavior, glorify #boymom, defend our girls by saying they're "not like other girls" and sell little girls on shiny object and lacy dresses, even if they really just want to play with dinosaurs (because dinosaurs are cool and not only for boys). Patriarchy, ftw! Red Pill, yay!
  - naasking 5y ago
    > What compels people to shun those that don't look like them or adhere to their standards? Perhaps a tradition of oppression an subconscious jealousy about the display of freedom by doing something atypical? If you want to be uncharitable, sure. Or maybe you could recognize the fact that human bonding is largely based on shared values, and if someone looks or acts radically different, then you see no common ground on which to establish such a bond. I think people are all too quick to reach for the "hatred" and "misogyny" labels.
tgv 5y ago
> A face is not immodest. A boob is not immodest. "Per se", perhaps. Your reasoning goes like this: sticking up your middle finger or shouting "motherfucker" in someone's face isn't insulting. It's the recipient that makes it an insult. Therefore, it is perfectly civilized to do either. And we're not talking immodesty. While different cultures may have different limits, that doesn't mean they're too subjective to even pay attention of. And showing your body is not a quest female empowerment, if only because it would leave the lesser gifted in the shadows. Calling it a quest female empowerment is an absurd word game.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
In Canada, indecency laws prohibiting bare breasts in females but not males were found to be unconstitutional. Despite the lack, social mores and cold weather fairly successfully keep breasts covered here. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs became more popular in reaction to the ruling, but the expected wave of bare female breasts did not happen, disappointing immature males.
tsol 5y ago
No one is censoring her, it's just demonization. No one is compelled to pay her for her content. Advertisers aren't the Taliban if they are picky with what content they're associated with. Artists have been complaining about sponsors dictating the terms of art of centuries and its always been just a niche background conversation. I'm not entirely sure why this is different, it's still private corporations doing business at the end of the day. It's get right to dress how she wants, and it's others right to associate with her or not. What I find interesting is the other female voice that gets shush is women who are for modesty. Other female content creators often take issue too-- it reminds me of the twitch scandal a while back where some women would wear beach wear on cam. Some women complained that in order to compete with that they needed to wear less too. And then they felt uncomfortable with the direction things were going. I think they made valid points, and yet then as now no one really cares. It feels like it's still a matter of controlling women's bodies, just not society is saying they should "wear less and be free" rather than wear more. Women's voices, at the end of the day, are still secondary in these conversations, especially when they take place on the internet, and that's something I find incredibly ironic. SexyCyborg herself is making posts here but it's drowned out by others fighting her fight for her. Rather than elevating the voices of creators like her, it's just turned into a "women need to be able to wear less everywhere or were the Taliban" thing. Which, by the way, is bordering in Islamophobic. Muslims make up close to 25% of the world population and many women choose to wear modest clothing. I know some firsthand. Treating them like they're just brainwashed or being forced by the Taliban is so insulting and demeaning and completely ignoring the voices of billions of women. I find it so strange how often I see people treating them like they don't exist or the their voices aren't valid. The Taliban isn't the only people in earth who find value in modesty and its frankly misogynistic to imply the women they feel that way are just backwards and oppressed
- chrischen 5y ago
  You are missing the point. The point is one group is forced to accommodate for problems caused by another group. The problem is the forcing. No one should be forced to wear burkas nor to not wear them. But the status quo there is that they are forced to wear them. Yes I agree with you forcing women to not wear burkas is equally as bad as forcing them to not wear them. I’m arguing that we should let each woman individually decide for herself their preferred body image (within the confines of equal laws applied to all genders). They can show their boobs, cover, them, cover their faces, shoe their armpit hair… whatever they want.
seoulmetro 5y ago
You're going to have a hard time convincing any logical person that boobs are not sexual. That's like thinking that gold is not prized.
godDLL 5y ago
Let me say something about what you wrote. You're not telling us what you're thinking, or you're telling us something without thinking about it. What you posted reads like a collection of ideas and not an argument of any kind. The quality of individual constituents in that above collection seems suspect as well. An argument might go something like: hypothesis, supporting evidence, prediction, theory, course of action. What you wrote reads something like: prescription, direction, story, conjecture, prediction, dismissal of example to the contrary, proposed emotional response.

sul_tasto 5y ago

I hear what you’re saying and I understand your points regarding men. At the same time, at least in the US, I think it’s important to acknowledge that a lot of judgmental criticism directed at women comes from other women.

rhizome31 5y ago
I think this is acknowledged by any serious feminist. Women can be sexist just as men can be feminist.

cmsj 5y ago

Extremely well said. Thank you.

SexyCyborg 5y ago

Well said

feupan 5y ago

> It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob I think you’re trying to rewrite the books that mention erogenous zones. Go read them instead. Boobs are sexual. Having said that, sexuality is not the problem; prudeness is. A vagina could be sexual and still be fine to be uncovered, as it is/was in some cultures.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
Neither sexuality or prudeness should be the problem, rather the aggression. Display of genitals is seen as a gesture of aggression or dominance, not just in Humans. That's what distinguishes nude breasts from nude genitalia. And it's a rather more pronounced problem with male genitalia, we're not equal in that regard. Some cultures do allow them being uncovered, but I think experts could still tell us that there are some rules to all of that. And these cultures are rather small and rare.
lucian1900 5y ago
Lips are also an erogenous zone.

lelanthran 5y ago

Yeah, sub out boobs with genitals in your argument, and replace men/man with women/woman and see if your argument is still sensible[1] when women complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia. You're complaining that men are the problem because women are the target, but I'm pretty certain a significant number of women also complain when a venue has unexpected partial female nudity. [1] Every culture draws the line at different points. Turning it into a "men are the problem" conclusion, while being wildly incorrect, is also hilariously sexist to both sexes. Edit your post to demean non-binaries as well and you'll have a hat-trick!

op00to 5y ago
Breasts are not genitalia. At least where I live in the US, there is no law against women being topless.
- sriram_malhar 5y ago
  Most states in the US have indecent exposure laws. Some explicitly speak of breasts, others coyly cover them under "private parts". https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/indecent-exposure-laws-by-state.html https://www.findlaw.com/state/criminal-laws/indecent-exposur...
  - chrischen 5y ago
    Yea but those laws are the manifestation of cultural mores. It used to be illegal for black people to vote so laws shouldn't be held up as universal rules of what should be right. I think the important bit is that breasts are not genitalia, and men can expose their breasts. At least for actual genitalia, no humans of any gender can legally expose them in public! That is at least fair.
jraph 5y ago
But it is still sensible with the replacement. In an environment where it's normal, there are no problems. I experienced such an environment myself, I was (surprisingly?) not bothered by this in such a setting and women there neither. Women may complain that they have no wish to see male genitalia in a setting where it is not normal / can be seen as / is an assault. Intents matter, too. If you point your middle finger, the finger is still a body part but you are doing something offensive because you intend to insult someone.

fxtentacle 5y ago

I agree with you on the moral part. But it seems odd to me that you're ignoring the fact that we are talking about a faceless amoral corporation here. Most likely, a prudish approach to breasts is simply good for business. That's why advertisers like it. And that's why Google has a hard time selling ads for this video. And that's why Google's algorithms demonetized it. Also, a lot of people in the US were upset about US companies bending to Chinese demands. But China is a huge market. Sacrificing your morals to gain 1.4 bio potential consumers is the correct decision if you're a die-hard capitalist. We live in a culture that allows the profit margin alone to dictate almost all moral decisions. I'm not surprised that this has led to questionable morals ...

3np 5y ago

Just want to point out that many Western countries and cultures don't share this hysteria and shaming around nakedness or female empowerment. Which doesn't mean that gendered power structures don't exist or that you see naked boobs everywhere in the summer city. Showing naked bodies in various contexts on public television is not controversial in many Western countries.

tsol 5y ago
And not all countries share then same culture of embracing nakedness. It's odd how they never get mentioned. Their views are valid as well, whether you agree or not. It's differing social mores. Defining what social rules are acceptable and what aren't (and hint hint it's our rules that are the good ones) seems like another way of dismissing foreign cultures, which unfortunately feels like an an age old coming from the west
- 3np 5y ago
  Of course. I'd argue that even expressions not embraced should still by default tolerated, as opposed to banned, censored, or demonetized. I can't say I know of a "perfect" nation in this sense, but there's absolutely varying degrees of range between "embraced ideas" and "accepted expressions". Both the USA and Afghanistan rank particularly low in an international context, there. My main point with the comment you're replying to is that either way, the idiosyncrasies presented by GP as "Western" are more American, or at least anglo-christian (in lack of a better fuzzy word).

bayesian_horse 5y ago

I think there must still be some restrictions. Topless nudity is on the verge for me. The only reason why I think there is a case to be made is that so many people around the world DO find it offensive. But that's still a weak argument. Showing primary sexual organs in my opinion is not a question and shouldn't be tolerated in many venues. It is a form of aggression in almost every culture. Even some hunter gatherers who walk around with genitals visible often have some way of making it less offensive. Very rare exceptions...

chrischen 5y ago
The issue here isn't about sex at all or sexualization. Sexualization is given as the reason because that's all men can see breasts as. If you look at it from a dog's point of view, or a baby's point of view, it's a source of food or just another thing and you may start to wonder what the big deal is with making breasts bigger or even showing them. The issue of contention here is that women have to adjust their behavior/physical appearance over some non genitalia body parts because it happens to induce sexualization in some men, and men don't have to cover that same body part. What if the majority of people were sapio-sexuals instead of breast-sexuals? Do I need to start dumbing down my HN posts so that I don't be perceived as immodest? Given the diversity of sexual preferences where do I draw the line of accommodating others' sexualization boundaries? For the record I agree with you on genitalia, because at least both men and women are not allowed to show them. But breasts? It is not genitalia—it is not even used in the act of sex (normally)!
- nihilius 5y ago
  Breasts are a secodary sex organ. And i dont know how you prefer your intercourse, but i happily fondle with the breasts of my wife during sex. If you break down sex to just reproduction, ofc they are only needed to feed the baby. But culturally the are sexual organs and erotic. So its normal in my (european) culture to hide breasts (at least the nipples) from public. Edit: I would like to add that its not okay to demonetize Naomi Wus 3D Bust Video. Thats another discussion and i think we are on par here.

jevoten 5y ago

> For any Westerners here who seem to have a hard time understanding why this is wrong As opposed to the sexually liberated cultures of Asia, India, or the Middle East? > The point is that those restrictions on women shouldn't be dictated by the actions or effects they have on men. Instead, men should either change their viewpoints or control their own sexualization so that women don't have to accommodate them. What is this mirror universe where men recoil at the unclad female form? Please direct your complaints either at puritanism in general, or Google and their advertisers in particular. I certainly don't feel accommodated by this demonetization.

chrischen 5y ago
With the exception of India those other places don't speak English. My comment was targeted at the predominantly Western culture of the HN audience, which I myself am a part of. > What is this mirror universe where men recoil at the unclad female form? That's great that you don't, but the point is not that men recoil at the female form, it's that men are dictating rules on women to help them control their own urges. Again, burkas were invented because men wanted women to be more modest, and to help prevent sins such as womanizing and sexualization. Both of those "sins" are predominantly committed by men towards women so it is a problem rooted in men, but solved by adjusting women's behavior. Even if some women prefer to wear burkas, or agree that it is good to be modest for some reason, that does not mean all women should now be required to do so.
- jevoten 5y ago
  > men are dictating rules on women to help them control their own urges. Which is why movements to ban porn enjoy wide support among Western men...

lvl100 5y ago

SexyCyborg 5y ago
Oh come on...
lkramer 5y ago
She seems capable of doing both. Especially if by body you mean boundaries.

labster 5y ago

Well said. Whoa, whoa. Is that why so many macho men can’t wear a face mask? Do face masks emasculate men? Because if they’re being told what to wear, to cover up their face, it’s being treated like a woman. Except it’s so completely not that. It suddenly makes more sense to me that people are so irrational about the mask and calling it “freedom” while they casually shed virus particles (micro-scale microaggressions), because it’s this weird cultural/emotional response.

numpad0 5y ago
Could that be why mask mandates are not as big of a deal in China influenced regions of East Asia, because macho-ism culture isn’t as big as well…

naasking 5y ago

> It is not sexualized because it is just a body part. It takes a man to do the sexualization, so the sexualization isn't the boob, but a man's who is doing the sexualization. I agree with most of your comment, but I just want to point out that women are also harsh judges of other women who don't fit cultural norms in how they dress or behave. It's not just men sexualizing women and trying to cut them out if they don't fit, it's also women policing other women in this way.

igetspam 5y ago
Ever stop to consider why? What compels people to shun those that don't look like them or adhere to their standards? Perhaps a tradition of oppression an subconscious jealousy about the display of freedom by doing something atypical? Women can be misogynists too. We don't have a monopoly on that. We as a collective value conformity because it keeps people in line and doesn't threaten our existing architecture. Things that deviate from norms draw attention and inspire discussions like this. Too many people thinking about coloring outside the lines and then more will do it. If we didn't indoctrinate our kids at the start, we'd have a higher chance for more uniform distribution of power. More people would be able to achieve success, which would raise the floor and make the ceiling not feel so high. Those on top would feel like they're losing because the gap would shrink and the perceived height from the top would be lower. Can't have that so we say things like "boys will boys" to dismiss shit behavior, glorify #boymom, defend our girls by saying they're "not like other girls" and sell little girls on shiny object and lacy dresses, even if they really just want to play with dinosaurs (because dinosaurs are cool and not only for boys). Patriarchy, ftw! Red Pill, yay!
- naasking 5y ago
  > What compels people to shun those that don't look like them or adhere to their standards? Perhaps a tradition of oppression an subconscious jealousy about the display of freedom by doing something atypical? If you want to be uncharitable, sure. Or maybe you could recognize the fact that human bonding is largely based on shared values, and if someone looks or acts radically different, then you see no common ground on which to establish such a bond. I think people are all too quick to reach for the "hatred" and "misogyny" labels.

tgv 5y ago

> A face is not immodest. A boob is not immodest. "Per se", perhaps. Your reasoning goes like this: sticking up your middle finger or shouting "motherfucker" in someone's face isn't insulting. It's the recipient that makes it an insult. Therefore, it is perfectly civilized to do either. And we're not talking immodesty. While different cultures may have different limits, that doesn't mean they're too subjective to even pay attention of. And showing your body is not a quest female empowerment, if only because it would leave the lesser gifted in the shadows. Calling it a quest female empowerment is an absurd word game.

bryanlarsen 5y ago

In Canada, indecency laws prohibiting bare breasts in females but not males were found to be unconstitutional. Despite the lack, social mores and cold weather fairly successfully keep breasts covered here. "No shirt, no shoes, no service" signs became more popular in reaction to the ruling, but the expected wave of bare female breasts did not happen, disappointing immature males.

tsol 5y ago

No one is censoring her, it's just demonization. No one is compelled to pay her for her content. Advertisers aren't the Taliban if they are picky with what content they're associated with. Artists have been complaining about sponsors dictating the terms of art of centuries and its always been just a niche background conversation. I'm not entirely sure why this is different, it's still private corporations doing business at the end of the day. It's get right to dress how she wants, and it's others right to associate with her or not. What I find interesting is the other female voice that gets shush is women who are for modesty. Other female content creators often take issue too-- it reminds me of the twitch scandal a while back where some women would wear beach wear on cam. Some women complained that in order to compete with that they needed to wear less too. And then they felt uncomfortable with the direction things were going. I think they made valid points, and yet then as now no one really cares. It feels like it's still a matter of controlling women's bodies, just not society is saying they should "wear less and be free" rather than wear more. Women's voices, at the end of the day, are still secondary in these conversations, especially when they take place on the internet, and that's something I find incredibly ironic. SexyCyborg herself is making posts here but it's drowned out by others fighting her fight for her. Rather than elevating the voices of creators like her, it's just turned into a "women need to be able to wear less everywhere or were the Taliban" thing. Which, by the way, is bordering in Islamophobic. Muslims make up close to 25% of the world population and many women choose to wear modest clothing. I know some firsthand. Treating them like they're just brainwashed or being forced by the Taliban is so insulting and demeaning and completely ignoring the voices of billions of women. I find it so strange how often I see people treating them like they don't exist or the their voices aren't valid. The Taliban isn't the only people in earth who find value in modesty and its frankly misogynistic to imply the women they feel that way are just backwards and oppressed

chrischen 5y ago
You are missing the point. The point is one group is forced to accommodate for problems caused by another group. The problem is the forcing. No one should be forced to wear burkas nor to not wear them. But the status quo there is that they are forced to wear them. Yes I agree with you forcing women to not wear burkas is equally as bad as forcing them to not wear them. I’m arguing that we should let each woman individually decide for herself their preferred body image (within the confines of equal laws applied to all genders). They can show their boobs, cover, them, cover their faces, shoe their armpit hair… whatever they want.

seoulmetro 5y ago

You're going to have a hard time convincing any logical person that boobs are not sexual. That's like thinking that gold is not prized.

godDLL 5y ago

Let me say something about what you wrote. You're not telling us what you're thinking, or you're telling us something without thinking about it. What you posted reads like a collection of ideas and not an argument of any kind. The quality of individual constituents in that above collection seems suspect as well. An argument might go something like: hypothesis, supporting evidence, prediction, theory, course of action. What you wrote reads something like: prescription, direction, story, conjecture, prediction, dismissal of example to the contrary, proposed emotional response.