|
 Peg's
Polemic
Every
month, philosopher Peg Tittle casts off the calm, measured and qualified
style of her profession to deliver her opinionated and impassioned
column, exclusively for the TPM philosophy café...
Number
13. Bare
Breasts: Objections and Replies
In
response to the male hysteria about women going shirtless in public,
I offer the following rational examination.
1. It's
immoral. Why? What is it about a woman's breasts that make it
immoral for them to be uncovered?
a. They're
sexual.
i.
If this refers to their role as fast food outlets, well, not every
woman's breasts are - and to legislate against all
because of some (and actually a very small percentage at
that, at any given time) is unreasonable.
Further,
a McDonalds in Ethiopia is surely more immoral than such a breast
in the park.
ii.
If this refers to 'sexually attractive', well, no they're not. At
least, not to me. Nor to any homosexual man I know. Gee. D'ya think
this was a law made by and for heterosexual men?
And
actually, by and for only some heterosexual men - I understand
that some are 'tits and ass men' while others are 'leg men'. And
since it's not illegal for us to uncover our legs - in fact, baring
our legs, wearing dresses and skirts, is encouraged - the law is
inconsistent, at the very least.
Doubly
inconsistent, at the very least, because I find men's
chests sexually attractive, and yet there is no law insisting
they cover up. (Well, some men's chests. As is the case,
I expect, even with those 'tits and ass men' - surely they don't
find all women's breasts sexually attractive. And if not,
then again, the law prohibits all because of a few.)
But
let's back up a step. Who determines whether a body part is sexual
at any given time or place - the owner of the body part or the other?
When I am shirtless on a hot day on Main Street, I'm not considering
my breasts to be sexual. When I'm with someone in private and in
desire, I do consider my breasts to be sexual. It's my call.
And
anyway, what if they are sexually attractive? Well, you may
answer, men are sexually aggressive; really, it's for your own protection.
Well, I say back, if a man has so little control that I must fear
assault whenever shirtless, then I say do something about the man,
not my breasts. (Surely the provocation defence is pretty much dead
and buried by now.)
And
in any case, that wasn't the point; the point was it's immoral
for women to go shirtless because their breasts are sexual.
But I have yet to hear why sexual is immoral.
b. The
Bible says
i.
- that it's immoral for women to bare their breasts. Okay, so
Jewish and Christian women shouldn't go shirtless. They don't have
to - I'm not arguing for a law that insists women go shirtless;
I'm arguing to eliminate the law that prohibits it. So you'll
still be able to follow your religion; you'll still get to heaven,
don't worry about it. I, however, don't share your religion. So
why should I have to follow it?
ii.
- that it's immoral for men to see women's breasts. Well, this
would make it more difficult for you to follow your religion then,
wouldn't it - if women at large were to be shirtless. I guess you'd
have to spend a lot of time indoors. But again, I don't share your
religious beliefs. On what basis do you limit my freedom
so you can follow your religion?
2. It's
disgusting.
a. Not
according to me. Why should your aesthetic be legally supported
and not mine? (And while we're invoking personal aesthetics, what
I find disgusting - much to my shame, so I'm working on this - is
men's guts that look 9 months pregnant; so to be consistent, there
ought to be a law insisting they cover that up.)
b. Hm.
If women's breasts are disgusting, why is Playboy thriving?
(The articles, ah yes, I forgot.) Let's pursue this for a moment.
I'll bet that the same man who ogles Candy Cane's breasts in the
centrefold would get all upset if Candy Cane did a Gwen Jacobs.
Do men have some psychological problem such that they can't handle
the real thing? And is it as boring as the need to control, the
need to be the centre of the universe? The real thing is okay in
a strip bar, it's okay if a woman does it for a man, but
if she does it merely for herself, well, we can't have that.
3. It's
just custom, that's all.
'That's
all' is right - appeal to tradition is not sufficient for anything,
let alone a law. (We've always bashed our babies' brains out, so
let's have a law saying we must continue to do so. It's just our
way.)
4. It
will lead to topless beaches, then nude beaches, then pretty soon
everybody will be walking around buck naked.
Your
point? (See 1, 2, and 3 above if all you're saying is that naked
bodies are immoral, disgusting, or contrary to custom.) (Otherwise,
check out the slippery slope fallacy: X need not lead to
Y.)
Before
closing, let's admit that men have breasts too: women's are more
developed and have the potential to produce milk, but both
sexes have two areas of tissue density on the chest, each centered
by a nipple.
Given
then that the distinction seems to be based on a difference in development,
pre-pubescent girls should be shirtless, by custom, as freely as
boys. The custom is, however, that girls as young as two years of
age are dressed in two-piece bathing suits - what's the point of
the top? Could it be the insane need to differentiate on the basis
of sex? Pink and blue, girls and boys, Ms. and Mr. - secretaries
and presidents.
Peg's
Polemic will next be updated towards the end of December 2001
Previous
polemics
12.
11.
10.
9.
8.
7.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
1.
|
