A Crash Course in Feminism Mk. II (or, why everyone should be a feminist)

[CoffeeGrunt]

I already have.

[Gotthammer]

Let's face it, aside from shirtless six-pack, men don't do sexy selling as well as women appear to. The question is whether you're just selling the woman, though, which isn't the best ideology to plaster across magazines.

Because women's body are sold as being inherently sexual, while men's are not. For instance a topless man may be "sexy", but it isn't inherently sexualised by virtue of being topless. But a topless woman is illegal because in the west a woman's chest is deemed sexual.
This relates into the concept of a girl at school showing her shoulders being "distracting", or the idea that a tween girl shouldn't wear a midriff revealing top as it's "making her sexy". The mere act of exposing a woman's body is sexualised but a man's body in a state of undress is seen as natural and acceptable.

[Psychosplodge]

oh was it the agreement you couldn't comment on?

[CoffeeGrunt]

Because women's body are sold as being inherently sexual, while men's are not. For instance a topless man may be "sexy", but it isn't inherently sexualised by virtue of being topless. But a topless woman is illegal because in the west a woman's chest is deemed sexual.
This relates into the concept of a girl at school showing her shoulders being "distracting", or the idea that a tween girl shouldn't wear a midriff revealing top as it's "making her sexy". The mere act of exposing a woman's body is sexualised but a man's body in a state of undress is seen as natural and acceptable.

I'd say that a male state of undress is still not exactly popular, though it's common for tourists and summer revellers. That said, the times men go shirtless are often accompanied by the times women go out in bikinis, with probably fairly similar frequency.

On the other hand, would women being completely topless walking down the street be a great norm to have? It only really makes the objectification easier.

oh was it the agreement you couldn't comment on?

I can't really comment on which is explicitly better, though boobs probably win out in the end. :P

[Psychosplodge]

I think we're talking aesthetically...

[eldargal]

Actually normalising female bodies and de-sexualising them (there is nothing inherently sexual about nudity) would help combat objectification. It is the ridiculous idea that womens bodies are inherently naughty, shameful and sexual and need to be covered up that facilitates that culture. You can see it in other cultures where they don't sexualise breasts at all and women don't get objectified as a result.

[Gotthammer]

On the other hand, would women being completely topless walking down the street be a great norm to have? It only really makes the objectification easier.

In large parts of Africa breasts aren't sexualised at all. Saw a comment where a photographer talked to some women about the sexualisation of breasts and all these women laughed asking if men in the west were like babies being obsessed with boobs

Similarly for male undress look at things like fitness magazines, films, tv, even adverts. Male toplessness (or even in a singlet and shorts, as that is seen as sexual on a woman) is used a lot with no comment. I mean how many times would say a locker-room scene in a police show or sports show just have all the guys with their shirts off (regardless of physique) because that's what happens so there's no issue showing it.

[CoffeeGrunt]

From a male point of view, a locker room of topless women is probably going to anger feminists anyway, even if it's the exact same thing men do, because there will be accusations of objectification.

If a man suggested that women walk around topless in order to desexualise female nudity, there would be uproar.

- - - Updated - - -

I think we're talking aesthetically...

They're not too bad, but then boobs do win out.

[eldargal]

Well it would anger feminists because we have a culture that does view breasts as sexual and sexualises them so the situation isn't equal. The point is that shouldn't be the case. It would also be more accepted if there was the equivalent amount of male nudity and if the female nudity was not filmed with the male gaze in mind.

[CoffeeGrunt]

How do you define female nudity, "filmed with the male gaze in mind?"

I mean, look to Kill la Kill, which features gratuitous male and female nudity as part of the show's canon for uniforms that empower people. It's absolutely silly, but people were up in arms that it objectifies the women despite it featuring male nudity, and despite the female nudity merely being shown as a means to an end in a strange way. (It's difficult to explain, the uniforms manifest in skimpy designs but grant their bearers superhuman power, as a mockery of Magical Girl Anime in general. Satsuki in general utilises it for her own ambitions, which are a major plot point throughout the series and especially in the latter third of the season.)

She's also an absolute badass who gets some interesting development as the show progresses, though Ryuko becomes her alter-ego of sorts, utilising said powers for a completely different purpose and mindset.