It’s become commonplace to see scantily-clad women in almost every type of advertisement around these days. The majority of the population doesn’t bat an eyelash when faced with the nearly-nude or the overtly sexual. Of course, there’s a fringe who believe that this idolatry of the carnal is the reason for all our suffering and that we should turn to the Lord and yadda yadda. So here we have two extremes, deathly opposed to the other’s perspective on what basically amounts to a singular issue: women’s breasts.
Nevermind that breasts are not inherently sexual organs or that both genders posses them (to varying degrees of utility), according to both sides of this argument, breasts are the most important aspects of a woman’s sexuality. These bits of flesh have been so eroticized that all other attributes of them have been thrown aside as secondary. Breastfeeding has become something almost vile. It’s seen as something uncivilized, something that animals do for lack of modern technology and opposable thumbs. Their primary biological function aside, breasts have become the embodiment of sex. It often astounds me that so many heterosexual males don’t even think twice about the supposed goal of their conquest (you know, the vagina) but instead focus all their lust on two fleshy orbs.
I’m not saying it’s wrong to find breasts sexually appealing. The problem I see with this hypersexualization is that the rest of the woman is basically forgotten. This licentiousness is used by both sides of this contentious argument to reduce a woman to a sex object.
By labeling this otherwise benign section of a woman’s body as taboo, we’ve created a huge disparity between the sexes. A man’s exposed chest is not only commonplace in advertisements and in the media, but it is perfectly legal for a man to walk around shirtless in public. We, as a society, do not consider a bare-chested man to be inherently sexual. But a woman’s breasts are seen as a corrupting influence, something dirty and sinful. The religious right seeks to cover them for the sake of salvation while the liberal media seeks to expose them for the sake of profits. Both sides neglect the harmful impact this has on the psyche of those who just happen to have been born with these fleshy lumps of controversy.
I recently read an article on Jezebel.com about Barnes & Noble censoring the cover of a magazine which displayed a bare-chested male model. Why, you might ask? Because this particular guy looked just a little too girly for the bookstore’s tastes. Apparently the decision was made in order to diffuse the possibility that some young child might look at the cover and realize that that fine line between nature and pornography is actually pretty damned wide. This, of course, would create a backlash causing an entire generation of Americans to grow up not being ashamed of their own bodies. And of course that lack of shame would bankrupt both of the institutions that capitalized on it, the church and big business.
And so an entire gender (as well as the slew of androgynous men out there) is reduced to being only slightly more useful and maybe a little less shameful that a Fleshlight. I honestly don’t think women’s rights will progress substantially at all until both genders are treated equal when naked. It’s a catchy slogan isn’t it?
No comments:
Post a Comment