4 ms·

One of the reasons we can tell nipple bans are irrational is that no one is saying, "If I see nipples, it will harm me." It's always, "If someone else sees nipp

One of the reasons we can tell nipple bans are irrational is that no one is saying, "If I see nipples, it will harm me." It's always, "If someone else sees nipples, it will harm them." When folks try to police others nine times out of ten it's not actually to protect latter - rather it makes the former uncomfortable in ways they know won't hold up to scrutiny.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago
This is weird to me. I find that people arguing on behalf of others is way more valid than whining about themselves.
- jfengel 4y ago
  And that's why they do it. It's a way of gaining apparent validity by expanding the group for whom you can claim harm. It goes off the rails when it's only others for whom harm is claimed. That's what makes children such a common trope here. Children will (almost) never say "this harms me". Instead, people get to claim something on behalf of the children, without fear of contradiction. No child gets to say "Hey, I wouldn't mind seeing some boobies." It's why Greta Thunberg caused such an uproar. She is a child, but got a platform to say, "Climate change harms me". It brought some credence to climate advocates who previously risked sounding like they were doing it "for the children" without the consent of any children.
- JonChesterfield 4y ago
  How about people arguing on behalf of hypothetical / imaginary other people?
- psychphysic 4y ago
  The reasoning is nonsense. It's just about being safe for work. As a man I can get away with a beach shot of me and a hypothetical son both without tops on. On my work desk. My hypothetical wife and daughter? Not so much.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    Yeah that's puritanism for ya. Where I live, it's technically legal for women to go topless anywhere men can. It would be interesting to test that as it applies to photographs in the workplace.
    - runnerup 4y ago
      This is true for a large portion of USA citizens as well. The lower bound on this is >13% of women in the USA can be topless anywhere that men are allowed to be topless. Purportedly, this includes the following jurisdictions: New York State 20200000 Wyoming 576851 Colorado 5773000 Utah 3271000 New Mexico 2117000 Kansas 2937000 Oklahoma 3959000 Austin, TX 961855 Asheville, NC 94000 Colombus, OH 906528 Eugene, OR 175000 Portland, OR 641000 D.C. 712800 New Orleans, LA 377000
    - psychphysic 4y ago
      Problem is Facebook and Instagram are global entities.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        And yet they don't censor women who aren't in hijab. Should you be using facebook and instagram at work? I know I don't.
        psychphysic 4y ago
        Where do you think they should draw the line as a business case? I see a pretty obvious line allowing women without a hijab but not what might be considered child porn (girls topless). Unless you're suggesting that topless girls goes from fine as a baby to not okay as a teen to fine as an adult? > Should you be using facebook and instagram at work? I'm allowed to browse at work. But not watch what they consider pornographic.
        klyrs 4y ago
- aeternum 4y ago
  The problem with arguing/advocating on behalf of others is that you can arrive at a state that no one actually wants. IE a group of friends wants to go to dinner, one suggests tacos even though they dislike tacos because they think that will make the group happy. Everyone agrees even though they hate tacos because they don't want to hurt the feelings of the suggestor. This frequently leads to suboptimal outcomes.
JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago
It's not a conspiracy, simply advertisers don't want to be associated with nipples and female nudity because according to their data and experience those ads don't convert (and generate negative press, but mostly don't convert) And it's true, I mean would you ever remember a logo or an ad you saw on PornHub or YouPorn? The PlayBoy magazine wasn't free, you had to subscribe to it because little money flowed into the business via ads. To put it lightly, focus of the consumer in those moments is elsewhere, not the ad. Advertisers love space which is placed in-between 2 slices of engaging (but not sexually engaging content), possibly where the viewer doesn't know when the advertisement will end and their favorite content is coming back on. That's the reason why SuperBowl ads and generally ads airing during live events such as NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL games are a favorite among brands
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  It sounds like we got different things from the article. That part that stood out to me was > The posts were flagged by users, then reviewed and removed by an AI system. To me this says that we're talking about a system that involves people who are telegraphing their dislike of nipple content. I agree with you that advertisers may have reservations about the content, but in this story advertisers aren't mentioned, only users who dislike nipple content are. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I can't see a connection between advertisers not wanting to be associated with the content in a way that causes people to report nipple pictures.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Remember that the US still has a rather large population of religious and otherwise extremely socially conservative people. These people are against uncovered breasts in general, and it makes them extremely angry. They also tend to be well organized, persistent, and have enough smart people to be a problem. Pornhub being thrown off of credit card payment systems was mostly the doing of an anti-porn religious organization. That's what these brands are afraid of. Conservatives bitching about "cancel culture" have NOTHING on the wrath of religious folks if you step outside their prescribed notions of the world. Remember, people BOMBED abortion clinics, like, not rarely either.
rcktmrtn 4y ago
> It's always, "If someone else sees nipples, it will harm them." ... I find it more compelling to put it this way: "If we make [something currently seen as sexual] normal in public, it will harm society". There isn't anything more magically sexual about the nipple than there was about the thigh. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. Culture/advertising has exposed the fact it's arbitrary by pushing up against it, but maybe it's just as sensible to argue that the line should move back towards being more modest than being less so. There is a separate discussion about why women's norms are more restrictive than men's, but I think things have gotten more libertine across the board.
- kelseyfrog 4y ago
  I find "harm society" much less compelling. It acts like a smoke grenade in discussions, filling up a lot of space and obscuring the topic. The air can only be cleared by answering, "who?" and "which relations in society?" otherwise we're fighting clouds.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago

This is weird to me. I find that people arguing on behalf of others is way more valid than whining about themselves.

jfengel 4y ago
And that's why they do it. It's a way of gaining apparent validity by expanding the group for whom you can claim harm. It goes off the rails when it's only others for whom harm is claimed. That's what makes children such a common trope here. Children will (almost) never say "this harms me". Instead, people get to claim something on behalf of the children, without fear of contradiction. No child gets to say "Hey, I wouldn't mind seeing some boobies." It's why Greta Thunberg caused such an uproar. She is a child, but got a platform to say, "Climate change harms me". It brought some credence to climate advocates who previously risked sounding like they were doing it "for the children" without the consent of any children.
JonChesterfield 4y ago
How about people arguing on behalf of hypothetical / imaginary other people?
psychphysic 4y ago
The reasoning is nonsense. It's just about being safe for work. As a man I can get away with a beach shot of me and a hypothetical son both without tops on. On my work desk. My hypothetical wife and daughter? Not so much.
- klyrs 4y ago
  Yeah that's puritanism for ya. Where I live, it's technically legal for women to go topless anywhere men can. It would be interesting to test that as it applies to photographs in the workplace.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    This is true for a large portion of USA citizens as well. The lower bound on this is >13% of women in the USA can be topless anywhere that men are allowed to be topless. Purportedly, this includes the following jurisdictions: New York State 20200000 Wyoming 576851 Colorado 5773000 Utah 3271000 New Mexico 2117000 Kansas 2937000 Oklahoma 3959000 Austin, TX 961855 Asheville, NC 94000 Colombus, OH 906528 Eugene, OR 175000 Portland, OR 641000 D.C. 712800 New Orleans, LA 377000
  - psychphysic 4y ago
    Problem is Facebook and Instagram are global entities.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      And yet they don't censor women who aren't in hijab. Should you be using facebook and instagram at work? I know I don't.
      - psychphysic 4y ago
        Where do you think they should draw the line as a business case? I see a pretty obvious line allowing women without a hijab but not what might be considered child porn (girls topless). Unless you're suggesting that topless girls goes from fine as a baby to not okay as a teen to fine as an adult? > Should you be using facebook and instagram at work? I'm allowed to browse at work. But not watch what they consider pornographic.
        klyrs 4y ago
aeternum 4y ago
The problem with arguing/advocating on behalf of others is that you can arrive at a state that no one actually wants. IE a group of friends wants to go to dinner, one suggests tacos even though they dislike tacos because they think that will make the group happy. Everyone agrees even though they hate tacos because they don't want to hurt the feelings of the suggestor. This frequently leads to suboptimal outcomes.

JumpinJack_Cash 4y ago

It's not a conspiracy, simply advertisers don't want to be associated with nipples and female nudity because according to their data and experience those ads don't convert (and generate negative press, but mostly don't convert) And it's true, I mean would you ever remember a logo or an ad you saw on PornHub or YouPorn? The PlayBoy magazine wasn't free, you had to subscribe to it because little money flowed into the business via ads. To put it lightly, focus of the consumer in those moments is elsewhere, not the ad. Advertisers love space which is placed in-between 2 slices of engaging (but not sexually engaging content), possibly where the viewer doesn't know when the advertisement will end and their favorite content is coming back on. That's the reason why SuperBowl ads and generally ads airing during live events such as NFL/NBA/MLB/NHL games are a favorite among brands

kelseyfrog 4y ago
It sounds like we got different things from the article. That part that stood out to me was > The posts were flagged by users, then reviewed and removed by an AI system. To me this says that we're talking about a system that involves people who are telegraphing their dislike of nipple content. I agree with you that advertisers may have reservations about the content, but in this story advertisers aren't mentioned, only users who dislike nipple content are. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I can't see a connection between advertisers not wanting to be associated with the content in a way that causes people to report nipple pictures.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Remember that the US still has a rather large population of religious and otherwise extremely socially conservative people. These people are against uncovered breasts in general, and it makes them extremely angry. They also tend to be well organized, persistent, and have enough smart people to be a problem. Pornhub being thrown off of credit card payment systems was mostly the doing of an anti-porn religious organization. That's what these brands are afraid of. Conservatives bitching about "cancel culture" have NOTHING on the wrath of religious folks if you step outside their prescribed notions of the world. Remember, people BOMBED abortion clinics, like, not rarely either.

rcktmrtn 4y ago

> It's always, "If someone else sees nipples, it will harm them." ... I find it more compelling to put it this way: "If we make [something currently seen as sexual] normal in public, it will harm society". There isn't anything more magically sexual about the nipple than there was about the thigh. It's an arbitrary line in the sand. Culture/advertising has exposed the fact it's arbitrary by pushing up against it, but maybe it's just as sensible to argue that the line should move back towards being more modest than being less so. There is a separate discussion about why women's norms are more restrictive than men's, but I think things have gotten more libertine across the board.

kelseyfrog 4y ago
I find "harm society" much less compelling. It acts like a smoke grenade in discussions, filling up a lot of space and obscuring the topic. The air can only be cleared by answering, "who?" and "which relations in society?" otherwise we're fighting clouds.