For the last week of December, we’re re-posting some of our favorite posts from 2011. Originally cross-posted at Ms.
————————
The cover of this month’s Dossier Journal magazine has caused a great stir. In a matter of a few hours, five readers — Andrew, Jessica B., anthropology professor Kristina Kilgrove, artist Thomas Gokey, and my brilliant colleague, music professor David Kasunic — all sent in a link. Here’s what all the fuss is about:
(source)
The model is a man named Andrej Pejic, with hair and make-up usually seen only on women, sliding his shirt off his back. Some might say that he is gender-ambiguous and the image deliberately blurs gender; are we seeing a chest or small breasts? It is not immediately apparent.
Both Barnes & Noble and Borders “bagged” the magazine, like they do pornographic ones, such that one can see the title of the magazine but the rest of the cover is hidden. Barnes and Noble said that the magazine came that way, representatives for Dossier say that the bookstore “chains” required them to do it (source). Non-ambiguously-male chests pepper most magazine racks, but this man’s chest hints at boobs. And so he goes under.
What’s going on?
Explaining why it is legal for men to be shirtless in public but illegal for women to do the same, most Americans would probably refer to the fact that women have breasts and men have chests. Breasts, after all, are… these things. They incite us, disgust us, send us into grabby fits. They’re just so there. They force us to contend with them; they’re bouncy or flat or pointy or pendulous and sometimes they’re plain missing! They demand their individuality! Why won’t they obey some sort of law and order!
Much better to contain those babies.
Chests… well they do have those haunting nipples… but they’re just less unruly, right? Not a threat to public order at all.
So, there you have it. Men have chests and women have breasts and that’s why topless women are indecent.
Of course it’s not that straightforward.
It’s not true that women have breasts and men have chests. Many men have chests that look a bit or even a lot like breasts (there is a thriving cosmetic surgery industry around this fact). Meanwhile, many women are essentially “flat chested,” while the bustiness of others is an illusion created by silicone or salt water. Is it really breasts that must be covered? Clearly not. All women’s bodies are targeted by the law, and men’s bodies are given a pass, breasty or chesty as they may be.
Unless.
Unless that man’s gender is ambiguous; unless he does just enough femininity to make his body suspect. Indeed, the treatment of the Dossier coverreveals that the social and legislative ban on public breasts rests on a jiggly foundation. It’s not simply that breasts are considered pornographic. It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 245
pduggie — May 18, 2011
' It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene."
Well, it could also be that "we"re turned on by naked women and naked femininity and while not afraid of it, want it segregated to places where it is appropriate.
If I'm in a bookstore looking for news magazine, I'm not looking for a boner. Or we want to help kids develop good social mores around sex (not treating woman as objects or instruments for their lusts) and we agree that making easily porn accessible to them undermines that social goal.
And this magazine cover presents a borderline case, and the bookstore errs on the side of caution.
Why does "i don't want to see that, now and here" equal fear?
and if it was fear, it would be fear of ones own sexual response. And that's a real thing.
LSJones — May 18, 2011
Of course, the primary reason is that men are responsible for most of the laws and they understand that men "just can't control those urges".
Interestingly, here in Rochester NY it is legal for a woman to go topless, although most women don't avail themselves of the privilege. That battle was fought some 30 years ago (give or take) by a group of women who chose to "flaunt" the law and get arrested. The subsequent decision reversed the discriminatory law.
emfole — May 18, 2011
yay! great post@
pduggie — May 18, 2011
I think its pretty obvious when visual portrayals are presented for the 'male gaze' and those of us with 'male gazes' get it, and respond accordingly
Leslee Beldotti — May 18, 2011
This reminds me of Brian Zembic, the man who won a $100,000 bet by agreeing to get breast implants in 1996.
What fascinated me about this story was that on TV and in magazines, the images of him exposing his bare (implanted) chest were always censored.
I think that here in the US we are VERY confused about what is obscene and what isn't.
Bill Angel — May 18, 2011
This image made me recall the work of Robert Mapplethorpe
See: http://sexualityinart.files.wordpress.com/2007/01/m4.JPG
But I think that Mapplethorpe's image is the better one in that it engages the viewer's interest in Mapplethorpe the individual. The image on the cover of Dossier magazine does not get me that interested who this person with his shirt open is.
m — May 18, 2011
Interesting. Sort of ties into the old notion of women being corporeal and men being... well walking minds, for lack of a better expression.
jane — May 18, 2011
I remember being terribly confused watching Dr 90210 (yes I am almost ashamed to admit that but it's necessary for the story) where a MtF transexual was having cosmetic surgery (she was already on hormones, identified as a woman etc etc) to get a more feminine body. Before she had the operation her nipples were shown unblurred but the very second breast implants were put in, ie during the operation, the nipples were blurred out!! Cos nipples with soft tissue behind them are not fit to be seen by the public!
I really hope viewers wrote to the show to complain.
links for 2011-05-18 « Embololalia — May 18, 2011
[...] What Makes a Body Obscene? » Sociological Images Indeed, the treatment of the Dossier cover reveals that the social and legislative ban on public breasts rests on a jiggly foundation. It’s not simply that breasts are considered pornographic. It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene. (tags: body.politics magazines gender) [...]
Angie — May 18, 2011
for what its worth, and I didn't read anyone's comments so forgive me if its already been said, Barnes and Noble probably did receive them that way... I used to run their magazine section... Barnes and Noble doesn't really censor their stuff. You can go in and buy a tattoo mag with a naked gal on the cover no problem, so I doubt they took the time to cover this up...
In fact, when I worked for BN their were a lot of books and magazines that had to be returned, and a new one ordered because folks damaged them for being "too pornographic" In particular, there was an art book that portrayed little boys with no shirts on that was sent back on a weekly basis because someone would pull it off the shelf and cut the pages and write "child porn" on the cover. Yet, BN required that the book be represented on the shelves. I have to assume they lost a lot of money form our store alone with that book going back and forth all the time... but they kept shipping us a new one, so I really doubt they were all too concerned about the cover of this magazine. Perhaps, after some requests from similar "large chains" the manufacturer simply assumed BN would want the same?
MPS — May 18, 2011
I must say the photo is wonderful from an artistic perspective. It's not only the hair and make up but the facial expression and posture that signal feminine sexuality according to cultural norms, so much that at first glance the image is actually enticing to a male heterosexual.
mamade4 — May 18, 2011
At first glance I thought this was Natalie Portman! I googled this male model, and he is beautiful, definitely fits the US version of feminine beauty. With his face in makeup and slender body he appears female, look at his modeling images. He could be one of the Victoria's Secret angels if he got implants!
Nicole — May 18, 2011
Perhaps the need for control of such images is related to the mans embarrassment of having an erection. When we get aroused it can be kept discreet and therefore we keep our privacy to acertain degree. It's one thing to accuse men if trying to control us by controlling media but if you were standing in the library next to a guy with a boner - well I'm sure it would be uncomfortable for everyone.
Jill — May 18, 2011
Thank you Lisa. This is so interesting!
Ambiguity and Obscenity | English 20803: Visual Argument — May 18, 2011
[...] Wade, over at Sociological Images, makes some interesting observations about the social connection between female nudity and [...]
Annie — May 18, 2011
I have always felt that women's chest and men's chest should be treated the same. If men can expose their chest then so should I but you you censor my chest or women's chest, then do so to men. And I know peope have asked whether anyone would want to stand in a book store next to a guy with a boner. First, I have seen guys that are very good at hiding their physiologcal responses in public and from what I have heard from friends, most people have been around guys with boners and not even known about it before so this should not be something new. Second, if the physioloical response can be hidden, how is an aroused man in public any different than an aroused woman? I personaly think that censoring anything about a woman which is arousing to men is damaging to women because it helps to objectify their bodies and it is damaging to men because it implies that they can't control their secxual impulses and desires while in public.
Tim Lister — May 18, 2011
Everyone's acting like men can just go shirtless anywhere, which is simply NOT true. While technically it may not be illegal to bare your chest if you're a man, magazine covers aside it is still inappropriate in almost every daily situation that comes to mind. The truth is that men are normally MORE covered by clothing than women. For example, how many men do you see wearing body-hugging mini-skirts? Or spaghetti-strap and midriff-exposing tops? When you see a man at the beach wearing a speedo isn't he usually an object of derision no matter his body type? Not so for women wearing bikini bottoms or tight-fitting one piece swimsuits. So let's try to get some perspective here. There may be different standards of dress for men and women, but one is not superior or inferior to the other. The only thing going on here is a publisher trying to sell copies of a magazine. Congrats on giving them free advertising via manufactured controversy. I'm sure they're loving this all the way to the bank.
pduggie — May 18, 2011
if everyone on the thread complaining I'm ignoring the arousal of women/gays at shirtless men thinks men's chests being covered would help those seeking to avoid arousal at unexpected or undesired moments, I'm all for it.
Guess I didn't know the issue was as big for ladies.
Oddly, some of you argue that if we had a culture that exposed and thus desexualized the breast exposure would be a non-issue. But if there is, in fact an issue with arousal at bare male chests, then that seems to disprove that thesis.
Let the legislation begin
Satchel — May 18, 2011
Twisty at "I Blame the Patriarchy" once wrote about a sensation she caused at a swimming pool when she appeared topless ... exposing the scars from her double mastectomy. So even a naked female chest without breasts is capable of causing a ruckus.
Rachel — May 18, 2011
Goodness the comments on this site are terrible. Lisa, Gwen, sometimes I feel so bad for you and the garbage you get for responses most of the time. Some of these people I think must be trolling, but you never know. I only read the comments every once and a while to see if they've gotten better, and it only ever makes me furious! Definitely not a safe space for discussion. I'm so sorry.
Village Idiot — May 18, 2011
This is about as good a definition of obscene/obscenity as I've seen:
It is obvious that 'obscenity' is not a term capable of exact legal definition; in the practice of the Courts, it means 'anything that shocks the magistrate.' -Bertrand Russell
In 1928 when Russell wrote that, all magistrates were of course male. And back then, it took a lot less than a nipple to arouse the magistrate and therefore be declared obscene, so in Western culture it seems to me that we had our own historical version of the burqa or veil but that over the past hundred years or so it's been slowly shrinking and presently the legal minimum for being in pubic has shrunk all the way down to a thong and pasties.
But if a thong and pasties are a legally-enforced limit for bodily exposure then they're just nano-burqas and as such I'm opposed to laws like that. I can imagine the shocked response some will have to this idea: "But does that mean you think people should be allowed to walk around naked?!?" Frankly I could care less (just like most people could care less about my opinions) but yes, if person or group A forces person or group B to do something they don't want to do even though it doesn't harm others or damage any private property then in my opinion it does fall somewhere along the exact same spectrum of arbitrarily created (and enforced) "values" as full-body veils. It may be the milder, less-strident end of that spectrum, but it's still on it. That said, total nudity will never be very common even if it's totally legal since weather, fear of awkward and painful abrasions, and other practical concerns are also factored into our apparel decisions.
Either way, life must be pretty good in general for folks who can indulge in the luxury of freaking out about things like nipples. Food? Check. Shelter? Check. Clean water? Check. Political stability? Mostly check. Violent crime? Happening somewhere else (so... check). Exposed nipples? Oh my God our children are gonna become perverts and die and go to HELL!
Tim Lister — May 18, 2011
How come nobody's commenting that this person looks extremely thin, almost unhealthily so? If it was a woman we'd all be engaged in a heated discussion about anorexia & bulimia. But since it's really a man apparently it doesn't matter. I'm constantly amazed at how quickly people will ignore their own biases to attack others for what they believe. Why is that? Does the need to feel "right" override any sort of critical thought process? Maybe if we all gave up the high & mighty attitudes society might make some real progress for once. Irrational anger leads to irrational reactions, and that doesn't help anyone in the long run.
Crystal — May 18, 2011
Usually, when a woman is naked/topless on a magazine cover (or in a magazine spread), she is posed in a provocative way. When a man is topless on a magazine, he is typically posed in a non-sexual way. This photograph features a sexual pose that is usually portrayed by a woman.
lola — May 18, 2011
But then its not just breasts because, for example, in Britain most high street bras are designed to give voluminous cleavage, and perfectly round breasts, but cover up nipples. So you can wear a very low cut top/dress and there is no problem, but if you wear a t-shirt and you're nipples show through it then people really do stare! So as well as the visual aspect, it is about controlling the breats, the nipples that poke out and the breast that wobbles - it is these movements that make them different from 'chests' - as hinted in the article.
Matt — May 18, 2011
Just popped in to say that "jiggly foundation" was a very nice turn of phrase in this context.
Wes — May 18, 2011
Really, no mention of transgender people in this, all the while discussing how "women have breasts" and men don't? Wow. Would love to see less trans erasure on here in the future.
Mike Elmore — May 18, 2011
I have often wondered the reverse of this in terms of hollywood. There are many movies that feature female breasts bouncing around or even full frontal nudity and they get an R rating but the second there is a man's penis flashed for even a second they want to give it the dreaded NC-17.
Michael — May 18, 2011
Awesome article and insightful comments, as always!
Minor comment: I think "men’s bodies are given a pass" by the law is a bit too easy. Yes, the male hetero body is the zero-state of the law, and yes, truly and agrievingly yes, the law targets women's bodies. But I do think we can be more precise about this, and that that precision will help in the battle to equalize and liberalize such laws.
There are LOADS of stuff I legally can't do with this male body of mine, as well as LOADS no one else can do to it. And thank you law for that! The "Keep your laws off my body" bumper sticker is, I think, a bit misguided.
Keep those laws right there. Please. I mean the ones that say things like don't rape, don't murder, don't abduct, don't abuse (and don't discriminate upon the basis of) this body or any body.
Again, prolly quibling a bit. But I do feel we lose sight of something important when we pass over the fact that very many (most? even all?) laws are laws of the body--male, female, or otherwise.
Censored Cover Raises Question: Why Are Breasts “Obscene,” But Not Chests? : Ms Magazine Blog — May 18, 2011
[...] Adapted with permission from Sociological Images. [...]
Allie — May 18, 2011
Well, how obscene is it that only one-fifth of the creative names on the cover is female?
crumbbum — May 18, 2011
it is art. It is progressive. There are lines to be crossed(ress) and people to enrage by doing so.
Rachel — May 18, 2011
great article. just want to throw this into the mix as well: http://www.songster.net/projects/matuschka/NYT_sortof_c.gif.
Remember this? Matuschka had a mastectomy - only one of her breasts removed - and brought attention to this issue of showing the naked human body NOT as porn.
Eric — May 18, 2011
HA! You progressive people should come to the Middle East where I live and try your totally progressive outlooks. Then you'd find a TRUE opposition, not the fantasy one you're cooking up.
Amy — May 19, 2011
The root and answer is the long-standing foundation of a patriarchal society.
Matty McCloud — May 19, 2011
ok, nobody here thinks that it is this way because men have been "rulers" since old age times?
only now things are starting to change, it's gonna take some time, but it will happen.
There are already topless laws in certain places, and there are such laws where I live in NYC where a woman can be topless in public, as long as it's not for business purposes.
I do think it is dangerous sometimes because men are a lot more aggressive than women and some men will attack a naked or half naked women because he is aroused and/or possibly drunk or whatever.
This wouldn't be a problem if we were brought up properly as a nation and didn't try to hide female bodies away.
if it was a common thing nobody would see a topless woman and immediately think about sex or pornography.
and yes I understand that Men are aggressive when it comes to sex, but what about if a man is aroused by another topless man?
Well here are my 2 points about that.
1. this nation is brought up on church and state.
Therefor religious views take over and blind us and our children.
It's burned into the back of everyone's head.
So the rights of gay bi lez and whatever else ISN'T straight aren't held as high, therefor will not have laws bend for them.
if they do have laws bent or changed it takes a LOT of time and people to do so, think about that.
Also men are aggressive by nature, but not as much gay men.
No, this isn't a fact and I am just making an observation, but I believe gay men aren't as aggressive as straight men and won't attack a half naked male, BUT this also makes another point valid! why do you think that is?
Because topless men are legal and it isn't a big deal to see a topless man, it's common and not seen as a problem.
SO, if we had the same ideals about female bodies, or at least their chests, There might even be less crime and this wouldn't even be a discussion right now.
We need to abandon this religious influence and become what we want to as the people, and as the people who follow the rules of government which were supposed to be created FOR THE PEOPLE!
What Makes a Body Obscene? » Sociological Images | Canon — May 19, 2011
[...] What Makes a Body Obscene? [...]
[links] Link salad feels even a bit more like its old self | jlake.com — May 19, 2011
[...] What Makes a Body Obscene? — Of chests and breasts. [...]
Barnes & Noble censors androgynous model on Dossier magazine cover — May 19, 2011
[...] Lisa at Sociological Images has a good analysis of how this stems from a history of fearing and censoring female bodies (in this case, Pejic’s potentially-perceived-as-breasts chest) but more importantly notes that, “if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene.” [...]
pduggie — May 19, 2011
I'd just like to see better analysis of norms than "aha, its really a reflection of the secret fears of the powerful". That may turn up in the CSI blue light, but it ignores what we can see in the visible spectrum. The corner cases and marginal effects are real and revealing, but when they overwhelm the normative examples and distort them ("You really fear all females") i think its worth discussing the larger picture.
Censoring Bodies: The Breast/Chest Conundrum | Projects and Musings by Rachel Ariel Scott — May 19, 2011
[...] The Society Pages. Oooh if I could spend my life writing for a blog like that! Yesterday author Lisa Wade posted about the “controversial” cover of this month’s Dossier Journal magazine. Later in the day Ms. Magazine posted an abridged version of Wade’s [...]
it was the best of times, it was the worst of times « femme guy! — May 19, 2011
[...] Here’s something about the foofaraw over the magazine that had male-assigned genderqueer model Andrej Pejic bare-chested on their [...]
Pobody — May 19, 2011
This makes me think of this photo (I have no idea where it's from, but I love it!)
http://27.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljcaqjifTp1qglzx1o1_500.jpg
It doesn't deal with obscenity so much as the roles of masculinity and femininity on men and women. Food for thought.
Bob G. — May 19, 2011
It's homophobia and sexism, plain and simple.
astripper'sopinion — May 19, 2011
im personally glad that its not acceptable for women to walk around topless in public because then i can demand a hefty dollar for showing my boobs
Juliana — May 20, 2011
Wow, this photo is so beautiful. Honestly, I WANT to see more gender ambiguity in print media. I want to see a spread on the gender spectrum!
Jiz Lee » Androgynous Censorship — May 20, 2011
[...] recently, the model’s image has faced censorship in American magazine outlets, as reported by Sociological Images and other [...]
Gayle — May 21, 2011
Judging from some of the over-the-top comments I recently read over at huff Po, I think men are initially sexually attracted to the image and that is freaking them out.
Gwen York — May 21, 2011
Texas and verious other conservative state laws say that a person's gender is "assigned at birth" through their DNA, so a person such as myself, who has undergone gender reassignment surgery from male to female is still, legally speaking, a male.
Does this mean I can go topless in public in these states and get away with it? I bet my left breast I'd be arrested if I tried.
Chrisfs — May 21, 2011
I think more than the femininity, it is the blurring of gender itself that causes the censorship. The concept of transgender can be more disturbing to people that the concept of a naked person of either gender.
Troubled Genders and Double Standards – “What Makes a Body Obscene?” | — May 21, 2011
[...] Sociological Images has commented on the recent cover of a magazine called Dossier. The image referred to depicts the up-and-coming male model Andrej Peijic who is famous for his androgynous fashion spreads and walking in fashion shows for women’s clothing. The cover image for Dossier takes the same line, presenting Pejic in a feminine hairdo and submissive pose while removing his shirt, which clearly reveals the naked chest of a young man. Or does it? I have to admit, I find this way steamier... [...]
Amiko-Gabriel — May 21, 2011
Not that I think people should be forced to cover their chests (regardless of the presence, absence, or size of one's mammary glands. I appreciate that this thing happened so that we can locate and dialogue about these social norms and taboos. But, I do hope studies of gender will strive for rigorous standards in public reporting. (With that statement, I open myself wide for criticism, as I am an amateur and have likely made mistakes.)
I comment thus because I felt that the conclusion was a bit clouded, conflating the legislative (legal/illegal social institution) aspect of gender issues, and the social aspect being norms and taboos. At the beginning, we are talking about the social issue in which the magazine cover is censored (by the stores). Next, we are taking into an articulation of the law as the gender police. Then, the conclusion, I felt, conflated the law with the social on this particular case of censorship. However, I have not read that the cover was censored in terms of the law, but rather in terms of the individual stores.
At this point, the “we” (of society, not of law) becomes divided: Dossier creates the cover. This chest is showable. Two chains censor the cover. This chest is not showable. From here, a very large assertion and core conclusion is made that: “It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene.” (Side note: “indecent” has become “obscene” but I not sure if that is relevant in terms of a transitioning away from the legal.) I did not feel that the article was sequitur as presented, nor offered adequate argumentation for the conclusion. I also felt a bid disappointed that many people would be reading this, and many would consider it as one more example of what counts as acceptable argumentation.
My hope in writing this comment was not to discourage the author from writing, but rather to encourage dialogue and reliable presentations of gender issues. Please, feel free to critique my own arguments.
Anon — May 21, 2011
@Amiko,
It would seem that in this case, the written law appeals to a normative account. The Miller test for obscenity has this as a component:
'whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest' (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/413/15.html)
Raya — May 22, 2011
Before reading the text, I thought the discussion is going to be about anorexia and whether to display models who look awfully thin. When women suffer from anorexia, they lose in many cases their breasts and would look like that, and in a way, it is a sick-sick picture (one that would probably fit a pro-ana magazine), if he had been a woman (I think that also as a man he's probably unhealthily thin, although it might be the angle).
V — May 22, 2011
"Explaining why it is legal for men to be shirtless in public but illegal for women to do the same..."
Nitpicky note: This actually depends on local laws. In my home state of Ohio, for instance, it's legal for women to be shirtless in any place where a man may be shirtless. The Ohio Supreme Court ruled in 1998 that a woman's breasts are not genitalia, and therefore the display of them is not indecent exposure.
Hawaii, Maine, New York, and Texas have similar laws, as well as parts of California. There are also local laws in various cities about such matters.
Admittedly, the majority of locations in the US do still prohibit it, and even in places with these laws on the books, women have been arrested for 'disorderly conduct' as a consequence of going top free.
S. Brand — May 22, 2011
The picture in question isn't pornographic, it's just in poor taste. Just as a woman who would bare her breasts in public is showing poor taste, given the standards (right or wrong) of society which (mostly) proscribes such activity.
There was plenty of that "show yer tits!!" stuff in the 60's and 70's and its sole purpose was to get attention. It's still going on today, mostly in places like the "Jersey Shore" locale. All the high-minded social significance blather being indulged in here is just that. Plenty of folks, seeing a bare-breasted woman, would take in the sight and then (properly) ignore it. Some would (naturally) be offended, others highly entertained. And most men look ridiculous with their shirts off; they just don't know it. One thing that men and women who like to parade around shirtless have in common is narcissism and they're truly not worth your attention, pro or con.
marilyn manson said it first. « cyclopticbambi — May 23, 2011
[...] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/05/18/what-makes-a-body-obscene/ [...]
Anonymous — May 23, 2011
From a personal point of view - I don't condone this kind of practice, I am not for the gender-bending idiom... but....There is nothing wrong with this picture! A fashion model Andrej is, and this is nothing more than fashion... and not just coz it is bare-breasting, which is a normal male pastime (although tended to be with more hair on the chest!) This is what sells fashion in this society - I honestly don't have any objection in this model opening up his chest to the world...but what I do object to is his open display of his transvestial nature... if women think this is offensive, then it should not be shown... lets all be fair and reasonable...
Yo Ma Ma — May 23, 2011
So they made the magazine wear a burka eh?
Matt Cornell — May 23, 2011
Men are not supposed to have breasts. That is what a young, hip Hollywood couple told me the other night in Los Angeles, when they encountered me with my shirt open on a street corner. Rarely does ideology present itself quite so, uh, nakedly.
Not Important News Round Up | Crasstalk — May 24, 2011
[...] A magazine cover of a shirtless man made-up as a woman was bagged by major chain stores because he looked like a lady, in that those could, possibly, be lady-boobs. [...]
Obscene | Prague Blog! — May 24, 2011
[...] friend sent me this article today knowing full well it would get my gander up. And it did. It seems that the image of an [...]
Što čini tijelo razvratnim? — May 29, 2011
[...] je to točno dio te fotografije tako skandalozan? Lisi Wade se čini da je “problem” u prsima. Slažete li se? andrej pejić, androginost, dossier, [...]
michew — June 15, 2011
Some males do have breasts. Many have medical conditions such as Gynecomastia, Cancers, being Over weight etc. If memory serves, where not initially male swim suits designed to cover bases sort of speak? All to often breasts are readily flaunted for all. I often see many males wearing tee shirts in the pool. Unfortunately, despite efforts made the shirt chosen doesn’t adequately work once wet.
In reflection- I am reminded of clinical supervisor words of wisdom.
If ever one is to wonder what is truly right or wrong. Just ask yourself this: "WHAT KIND OF WORLD WOULD THIS BE IF EVERYONE IN IT ACTED JUST LIKE ME?" There is no I, ME, MY in the constitution only WE. Do WE all go topless or do WE have rules to govern?
UWaterloo Drama and Women’s Bodies « radengineer — June 18, 2011
[...] why female engineers worry so much about what they wear. I mean seriously, even bodies that only imply femaleness need [...]
In which NPR has an exceedingly naive article about gender (written, of course, by a white dude) « facilegestures — June 24, 2011
[...] androgyny was presented on the front of a Dossier magazine cover, Barnes and Noble censored it. See Lisa Wade at Sociological Images and Vanessa at [...]
Sarah Jessica — December 28, 2011
Life is so lonely .I am a sexy and single woman at present .I need a man
who can love me back . I also uploaded my hot photos on w W
w.richsingleclub.C//o//m under the name
of jessicasingle, CERTIFIED INCOME)..It’s the largest and best club for someong special and
seeking CEOs, pro athletes, doctors, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, beauty
queens, fitness models, and Hollywood celebrities.Please Check it out!I’m serious.
Coreyjohnrichardson — December 29, 2011
In the prison system, it is the penis and the penis alone which assigns one to a prison. Have penis = men's prison. No penis = women's. The penal system does have rules about breasts of course. If in a men's prison with augmented breasts, you must use or must not use a bra (i.e., the warden decides one way or the other depending on his choice for the prison). Keep them covered up though on the yard or in the dorm. Still. these men feel the same stigma and power of these orbs! (Also, if u enter the system on hormones u get to keep using them, but if u were off of them at the time of your imprisonment - then forget it... )
Sheri Ranch — December 29, 2011
The photo is beautiful. In a society that has been raised with shame, it's hard to break free of the mold for many states in the U.S., especially the Bible belts. When I went to South Beach, Miami and was able to take my top off on the Beach, I was delighted. In Las Vegas, we can do the same at several Casino Swimming Pools. Breasts, Chests who cares, as long as they can be seen without lust and instead for the beauty of the human body.
Gynomite’s Reading Room! « Gynomite! — December 29, 2011
[...] makes a body obscene? Another amazing post at Sociological Images, the site I’d be if I wasn’t so obsessed with pop culture and video [...]
Zomaa — December 30, 2011
all sensible comments... the do and taboo of our society is a bit askew... repressed reflections tends to create shadows of expectations....
Friday Sex Links! « Sex with Timaree — December 30, 2011
[...] What makes a body obscene? [...]
Rachel Kantstopdaphunk — December 31, 2011
That is one beautiful freaking man. So so so so pretty.
Blurring the Gender Line « bringingbackthesweatervest — January 2, 2012
[...] For the record, the image below is actually a man. Men pose shirtless on magazine covers all the time, so why is this one a big deal? We seem to have an obsession with breasts and women’s bodies more so then men. For a fantastic post about this issue, check out The Society Pages. [...]
Busted Boobies or Titting Around with Cover Art | K D Grace — January 8, 2012
[...] an excellent post about the Dossier Journal cover controversy last month, Lisa Wade, PhD, notes that the [...]
Sallie — March 21, 2012
You might enjoy "Let's Play the Obscene Nipple Game!" on the blog TheBeautifulKind.com Kendra asks "can you guess which nipples are legal?" http://thebeautifulkind.com/articles/let%E2%80%99s-play-the-obscene-nipple-game
Why Is Femininity Obscene? | The Beautiful Kind — March 25, 2012
[...] sent her this article about a male model in Australia who was censored for being too feminine, and she could very much [...]
abbeysbooks — May 18, 2012
Oh I do like this. Fits right with Foucault's Lectures on Abnormal at the College de France 1974.
abbeysbooks — May 18, 2012
Baudrillard's definition of obscenity is a proliferation to the saturation point of meaninglessness.
Look at breasts in a Spencer Tunick performance piece. So many hundreds the "perversity" collapses, the female breast loses all its seduction illusion and "bare" reality pervades. There is nothing sexy in those old National Geographics we used to snicker over in olden times.
kangarara — May 31, 2012
Not in BC/Ontario! Toplessness for women is legal (although who would want to?)
QCDQED — June 24, 2012
To call this obscene you must have some deep seeded issues with gender confusion or crisis.... Grow up please.
Floatingcloud — January 7, 2013
What if a woman has, for whatever reason, removed her breasts trough surgery? Is she allowed to bounce around topless?
I also find it ridiculous that the big issue seems to revolve around nipples. Female side- and under-boob is everywhere, as is cleavage. Seems you can show everything, except the nipple. Unless you're a dude.
Even dumber is the constant bombarding with tits in adds, but public breastfeeding is apparently a horrible thing.
Superabound — January 17, 2013
The irony is that his boobs are much smaller than those of every man to ever shirtlessly grace the cover of any male fitness magazine.
But the obvious solution is to start treating all male toplessness the same as female toplessness and everybody GO PUT A FUCKING SHIRT ON
Kurt — January 20, 2013
Just think for a moment. In the U.S. you can show on T.V. at anytime a show where a person has been murdered. The show the body in every state death one can imagine. Arms and legs blown off, guts hanging out. People shot in the head with their brains scattered. But if the station were to show a woman's breast or nipple god forbid. All hell would break loose and large fines levied. The United States has gotten so absolutely ridiculous. We the people are NOT represented in Washington those the RICH are. The United States has gone to hell we all should be ashamed and vote everyone out of office and start new.
Kurt
Slomau — January 27, 2013
you want obscene human bodies? don't fiddle about with your observations about sexuality and gender - you think that's something in my face? tread on new ground and show us some really spiritually intrusive images like any of the bodies of surviving veterans with their burned faces, limbs not severed but ripped, emotionless eyes, emotion filled eyes (but not the emotions you want to see) give me a break - this shit is pussy
Michael Forde — March 15, 2013
Thats a woman, and you're being trolled.
Att vända på könsrollerna | Genustestet — April 22, 2013
[...] här gillar jag. Jag kom i kontakt med den för första gången när jag läste ”What makes a body obscene” på briljanta Sociological Images. Den ställer omedelbara frågor om vad och varför kroppar (kan [...]
How you, yes you, can resist the evil lure of WOMEN’S (objectified) BODIES! | A humble social justice cleric — October 21, 2015
[…] magical bodies. We have the power of objectified bodies. Our bodies are the chosen symbol for sex. Yes, all of our bodies. The hint of nipple represents happiness, fulfilment, intimacy, and presents it as something that […]
nonton kdrama — October 20, 2018
Can I simply just say what a comfort to discover
somebody that genuinepy understands what they're discussing online.
You certainly know how to bring a problem to ligbht and make it important.
A lot more people should look at thjis and understand this side of your story.
I was surprise that you aren't more popular since you certainly possess the gift.
porn se — May 6, 2019
This article will assist the internet viewers for building up new web site or even a blog from start to end.
Artie whitefox — October 16, 2020
the colorful, yes the colorful Satan in the mind who is covered in gold and gems. The being whispers; The law says this: that body is obscene. Arrest them. You will obtain great power, being better that the person who is accused. They that don't see you do that, will ridicule you. I have you between a rock and a hard place. I have many that are on my side. I will work through them to do that. The person buys the lie. God’s image is not indecent, or lewd, or naughty, or inappropriate, or dirty. The mouths of people who speak against it are dirty, defiling their whole body. The church teaches filthy lies. The church says we are wonderfully, and fearfully made, and then sling mud on the words that are spoke, praising the body. The catholic church does not have a sex problem. That is a cover for a human sacrificing problem. The church is gonna wish that they never adopted that colorful cake, that is associated with human sacrifice. The epiphany cake. That church loves Muslims who are proud of their children, who are martyrs. Pedophilia people are not like those murdering, deceptive liar
Artie whitefox — October 16, 2020
The colorful, yes the colorful Satan in the mind who is covered in gold and gems whispers this: The law says that body is obscene. Arrest them. You will obtain great power, being better that the person who is accused. They that don't see you do that, will ridicule you. I have you between a rock and a hard place. I have many that are on my side. I will work through them to do that. The person buys the lie. God’s image is not indecent, or lewd, or naughty, or inappropriate, or dirty. The mouths of people who speak against it are dirty, defiling their whole body. The church teaches filthy lies. The church says we are wonderfully, and fearfully made, and then sling mud on the words that are spoke, praising the body. The catholic church does not have a sex problem. That is a cover for a human sacrificing problem. The church is gonna wish that they never adopted that colorful cake, that is associated with human sacrifice. The epiphany cake. That church loves Muslims who are proud of their children, who are martyrs. Pedophilia people are not like those murdering, deceptive liar
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
Absolutely positively nothing is lewd, or obscene, or indecent or inappropriate or child pornography about the body. Satan is cursing at the body through people when the say that regarding the human body or sheaths or genitalia on any mammal. A bee touching a sexual organ, when pollinating a flower. A hand on your organ or that of a human or other mammal will likewise not be bad either. A bees mouth is on that flower. Think about that? It is not bad to have your penis in a vagina or whatever hole being seen doing that activity. What is sexy to you? People are not free in a nation, said to be free.
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
The colorful, yes the colorful Satan in the mind who is covered in gold and gems whispers this: The law says that body is obscene. Arrest them. You will obtain great power, being better that the person who is accused. They that don't see you do that, will ridicule you. I have you between a rock and a hard place. I have many that are on my side. I will work through them to do that. The person buys the lie. God’s image is not indecent, or lewd, or naughty, or inappropriate, or dirty. The mouths of people who speak against it are dirty, defiling their whole body. The church teaches filthy lies. The church says we are wonderfully, and fearfully made, and then sling mud on the words that are spoke, praising the body. The catholic church does not have a sex problem. That is a cover for a human sacrificing problem. The church is gonna wish that they never adopted that colorful cake, that is associated with human sacrifice. The epiphany cake. That church loves Muslims who are proud of their children, who are martyrs. Pedophilia people are not like those murdering, deceptive liar.
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
The lack of have god's image, giving to god's image, what is God's, makes god's image, to be mean to god's nude, naked, in mage..
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
The lack of have god's image, giving to god's image, what is God's, makes god's image, to be mean to god's nude, naked, image..
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
Satan says obscene. Can't you hear that being? Jesus who is the Lord of Glory will not say that. Jesus made those parts, in many shapes, and sizes, on living things.
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
The entier planes would look like a black hole, had black be the only color. BLM people need to see this. We are the human race. Once to live, and then the judgment.
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
The entier planet would look like a black hole, had black be the only color. BLM people need to see this. We are the human race. Once to live, and then the judgment.
Artie whitefox — August 20, 2021
Islamic people see non islamic people as being obscene. Muslim's want the Police to be gone, so they can take over. BLM need to know this. Muslims think Satan is black with one eye. There are no one eyed anything on the earth.
Artie whitefox — August 27, 2021
The body is not obscene. Satan says that. It is not a sin to jaculate either. The person can do what they want with their ejaculatory fluid. The person can ingest their own or that of another, or another mammal, if they chose to do that. Majority rules will makes people to torment people, who do that.
Artie whitefox — August 27, 2021
The body is not obscene. Satan says that. It is not a sin to ejaculate either. The person can do what they want with their ejaculatory fluid. The person can ingest their own or that of another, or another mammal, if they chose to do that. Majority rules will makes people to torment people, who do that.
Artie whitefox — August 27, 2021
Majority rules needs to be done away with. Majority rules creates a mob mentality against a few people, trying to be their harmless selves. People who have no peace in them will want majority rules. People like that want to revel in their lack of peace against a person. That person will break all of the laws of God, working ill to a person, feeling like they did a good thing.
Artie whitefox — September 10, 2021
The lack of having god's image, giving to god's image, what is God's, makes god's image, to be mean to god's nude, naked, in mage..
Artie whitefox — September 10, 2021
Edited; The lack of having God's Spirit in our mind. The Adversary will be be mean to god's nude, naked, image. Satan made money, Money makes people to be bad to that image.
Artie whitefox — September 17, 2021
Devils screaming the word obscene, with devil possessed people believing what is spoken. People cower, going into hiding. Devils smile. God is sad.
Artie whitefox — September 17, 2021
Devils screaming the word obscene, with devil possessed people believing what is spoken. People cower. People hide. Devils smile. God is sad.
Artie whitefox — September 17, 2021
Devils are screaming the word obscene, with devil possessed people believing what is spoken. People cower. People hide. Devils smile. God is
Artie whitefox — September 20, 2021
The word obscene, regarding God's image, makes people to buy clothing, making the makers of the clothing, to receive money. A lie is making people to buy clothing. The church, saying they represent God, are calling God an obscene being. Blasphemers are running the church. The church is not calling money obscene, when that is the thing, that is obscene.
Artie is a whitefox — August 4, 2022
Satan says the word obscene when the nude form is seen. Can you hear that being when people deride the nude form saying all manner of evil regarding the nude form. That image is God's image. That image existed before time. God wants us to have his kind, honest, giving, easily intreated, merciful, meek and lowly likeness, to be in us. People will be like the animals that did not accept vanity willingly when the non-condemning Unseen Father comes into their mind. Those animals will not give a nude person guilt.