It has been 21 years since Sex and the City’s Samantha Jones uttered the words “nipples are huge right now” – yet here we are again. This time, though, nipples are so huge as to be worthy of adornment. “Pasties” – self-adhesive nipple covers usually worn under clothes in lieu of a bra – are being worn proudly, in metallics rather than muted tones, as part of an outfit rather than behind-the-scenes staging.They have, in fashion circles, gone the way of lingerie: underwear as outerwear, the externalisation of something that was once meant to be concealed. Pasties are no longer sharing space with hidden necessities, such as boob tape or bunion insoles; instead, they are the stars of the show...“The fashion for pasties on the red carpet is not entirely unprecedented,” says Sarah Thornton, the author of Uplifting Sagas: The Top Half of Women’s Liberation. “The pasty arose with burlesque as a commercial form of bare-breasted entertainment. There was no widespread need for them before that. Also, the availability of easy, cheap, gentle adhesives was a necessary precursor – hence their name, which derives from the word ‘paste’.“The burlesque cliche is that they are ‘boob jewellery’. They draw attention to nipples as much as they mask them. When I think of the history of pasties, I see red satin, sequins, rhinestones, diamantes, silk tassels.” In this way, their latest incarnation is more in line with their burlesque backstory than their more recent deployment to hide nipples.
Continued at The Guardian.
Somewhere between what we see here, and the biological, mammalian function of a nipple, there's a lot of ground. Is that one way of understanding what it means to be a modern human? I guess it is.
ReplyDeleteIs there a men's version? to cover that 'other' region?
ReplyDeleteA "men’s version" would cover their nipples. That’s how nipples work.
DeleteEverything that was inside is now outside: https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/health-brand-launches-womb-shaped-cereal-period-stigma-125113281.html
ReplyDeleteStop being afraid of boobs.
ReplyDeleteThey're just body parts like arms and ears.
It's the sexualization of boobs that makes this sight weird for prudish people.
Why can these ladies show their bare arms, but not their bare boobs?
It's so weird that somehow a tight shirt showing every contour of a boob is "allowed" but a bare boob is not. Both are sex. And why are bare male boobs allowed, but bare female boobs not?
It's all misogynistic sexualization of female bodies.
So, stop being afraid of boobs and butts, and let the ladies wear whatever they're comfortable in (or out).
Not sure where you see the boob-phobia. Seems to me it's a certain brand of feminist that wants it both ways: Women free to leverage their sexuality any way they want, while men are patriarchal micro-aggressors for even noticing. We were much better off with the "free love" ethos of the 60s. Sex-negative feminists have really poisoned the punch bowl. I pity the young men of today--and the young women. What was once messy experimentation has been turned into a minefield of neurosis, scripted consent, kangaroo sexual misconduct courts. etc. Adults being treated like children. This version of feminism, complete with its own phobias, gets no rebuttal. To even question the entire direction is to invite academic annihilation.
Delete> It's the sexualization of boobs that makes this sight weird for prudish people.
DeleteThey are called secondary sex characteristics for a reason. I don't think they need to be covered up, or treated any differently than a man's beard or deep voice, but to try to disclaim their relationship to sexuality is absurd.
I'm not fond of ideology driven abstractions that deny biology. They make no sense to me either. If we are the only species that experiences gender as wholly elective (optional, performative, etc.), we are exceptional indeed. In Against the Grain, the author argues that sexual dimorphism declines to some extent as people become more civilized--an actual physical change. I think this is correct, but only ideologues take the next step and erase gender by way of elaborate arguments supported by what appear to me as a set of misguided, wishful abstractions. I think this is another nature-nurture debate where nature is just not very convenient for those pushing wholly performative identity. It's scary that such thinking gets any traction at all.
DeleteI say go full Minoan dress and just let 'em loose. I don't have the energy to care about nipples.
ReplyDeleteAs with where I live, in much of the US neither women nor men nor the non-binary are required to wear a shirt. This was deliberately tested in court in my county and the citation was thrown out. Having said that, I think this is very much more about custom than legality. Or about fashion statements, etc. Not a justice issue, but more a matter of the never ending need to fuel ideological positions and identity nonsense, having little to do with justice for those actually suffering real oppression--the poor, the animals, the planet. Seeing ultra-rich celebrities "testing the limits" is ultra-rich indeed. https://gotopless.org/topless-laws
ReplyDelete