I think we are.
As a woman, I see it quite clearly.
Sure sure, I remember Katy Perry and the Sasha Grey thing. There will always be critics, and sometimes more effective than others. But the levels of skin Perry was showing and the background Grey has are a pretty far cry from a society having a grande mal freakout because now someone's eyes are deemed too sexy for this deen.
You mean a society that blanked out a woman's nipples and a society that had a hissy fit because a performer flashed a nipple on stage or the society that deemed a woman's cleavage was inappropriate for a children's show?
How about a society that deems women responsible if wear a mini skirt and are raped? That kind of society? The kind of society that thinks anything revealing on a woman or about a woman, yes, even her eyes, is deemed inappropriate because well, men might feel the sudden urge to fuck her without her consent. That society? That is the society we live in. You live in it as well.
Of course. But so many and so vociferous as elsewhere? I doubt that most sincerely. Will we enact laws that throw women in the slammer for having too few witnesses, either at all or in any number approaching those places that get a social rights skim-job from Sam? Well, no. As far as the record goes, it appears we're getting far more liberal about the rights of the allegedly assaulted (I know you will balk at that term, but it's not mean as an attack) as time goes on. Granted, there arrives eventually in every trend a limit to the ways in which evidence is collected and accepted, or at which point legalistics lifts the process of justice from accuser and/or accused.
We are?
Heh, could have fooled me. You only have to read through the countless rape threads on this forum to see just how many people deemed the woman responsible if she is raped if she behaved in a manner that was not ladylike (ie was drunk, asleep, passed out from alcohol, dressed in a certain manner, date rape, etc). Just ask Signal.
I really don't agree that we are. Hell, it's more and more prevalent every day, it seems. Nude protests, nude PETA, nude sculptures, nude protests of nude laws. It all seems well in train. I mentioned the old Saudis, but one could as easily point at Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq and Iran these days.
Or any other country on earth.
Perry and Sesame Street is a prime example.
Do you know why there are nude protests and nude PETA, etc? Because it shocks and people react to them because people are so unused to nudity in society in general.
Hmmm - think that might be stretching it a bit. Naked where? There's such a thing as turning your head, but naturally societies do impart certain limits to personal expression. The limits of Western society are quite wide, of course, but finite within narrow periods. It appears that such limits are still moving, to my eye, and moving in the direction of increasingly liberal dress and comportment.
Tell that to the woman who was humiliated and abused by a judge for breastfeeding in the public gallery of a courtroom because her behaviour was "inappropriate" or women who are abused for breastfeeding in public because they are showing some boob. Or Perry for having ample breasts and unfortunately having cleavage on a children's TV show. Or the porn star who participated in a nation wide activity to get children to read, by going to read to a bunch of 7th graders and the parents were up in arms about how inappropriate that is.. because apparently, 7th graders who did not even know who she is were being tainted by her presence in the classroom. I don't think you quite realise how increasingly prudish society is becoming.
I meant naked in public. How about at a beach? What if you saw topless women sitting at a beachside cafe eating lunch?
Well, I'm sorry you don't like that comparison, but it's a relevant one: planks and specks, as they say.
But you did not really answer the question, did you? We know how limiting the Saudis are, as well as many other countries. We know they deny women their rights. No one is denying that. No one is saying it is right. Sam isn't. So bringing it up again and again adds nothing to this discussion. We are talking about a so called liberal Western society fuzzing out nipples of a girl who is protesting against the restrictive society she lives in by posing nude. And in response to that, we fuzz out her nipples. The irony is hilarious. Yet, here you are, instead of discussing why the media decided to do this in the West, bring up Muslim block countries that this girl was protesting against and about. Do you see the irony of your argument?
I'll make it simple for you. Why do you think the Western media blanked out her nipples?
Not sure. But they provide the link; so what is lost, exactly? Tell me this: in which previous incarnation of our media would they have printed her, nips and all, that illustrates this anti-liberalizing trend you describe?
One would expect the media to provide a link to the blog they were reporting on. But why did they blank out her nipples in the photo they showed in the story?
But they wouldn't have. That's the thing. The West has an issue with nudity and showing nudity to the public. This is just a further reiteration of that. Because nipples are apparently offensive.
