Breasts are causing problems again – female breasts, that is. Recently, Instagram removed a photograph of pop star Madonna and she was not amused. According to Madonna, “The reason they gave my management ... was that a small portion of my nipple was exposed.”
Recently, there was criticism of another pop icon, Rihanna, regarding her attire at a historic event in her home country of Barbados, where the country ditched the British monarchy and became a republic. During a ceremony to mark the occasion, she was declared a national hero.
The main issue was what she was wearing. She was obviously not wearing a bra, and some, including popular Jamaican broadcaster Fae Ellington, found this to be unacceptable. When asked by a media house to comment on Rihanna’s outfit, Ellington remarked, “It was most inappropriate. All her boobs were just jumping up and down in the frock.”
The vilification of the female breast, especially the nipple, is an interesting phenomenon. The female breast’s main function is to feed, nurture and comfort us in our first months of life. One of the first acts after the delivery of a newborn is to place the infant on its mother’s breast. Breastfeeding is heavily encouraged. Slogans such as “the breast is best” are well known and accepted. So, how does something so important for life and well-being become obscene and offensive?
Our coat of arms depicts, among other things, a Taino couple, a man and a woman, whose chests are uncovered. The image is present in schools and government buildings, and there is no problem with that. In fact, it is also present on all our currency. However, if a living man and woman were to recreate the image, and the photograph displayed in those same schools and government offices, there would be an issue.
First, people would wonder how they got a crocodile to pose for the photograph and not bite the man or the woman. Second, there would be complaints about the woman’s mammary glands, especially because her nipples would be exposed.
BANANAS OVER NIPPLES
Which leads to another question, being disturbed by breasts is one thing, but the nipple makes people go bananas. A woman of any breast size can share a photo of herself attired in swimwear. If most of her breasts are exposed, once the nipples and areolae are covered, life goes on. However, if an areola or, God forbid, a nipple sees the light of day, alarms go off. The photo would likely be censored and taken down on social media platforms and its poster banned for violating “community standards”, while pics of bare-chested men are accepted.
Christopher Rimmer’s experience is an example of this folly. The critically acclaimed and award-winning Melbourne photographer posted an image on Facebook from his body of work, Confluence – Tradition & Modernity and the Last Tribes of the Kunene River. In only two minutes, the image of a tribal woman in traditional dress was deemed to be in breach of the social media site’s “community standards”. It was removed, and Rimmer was banned from the platform for a month.
Rimmer stated, “Quite clearly I am an artist not a pornographer. The fact that a male nipple is deemed acceptable by the Facebook censors whilst a female nipple is considered a breach of their standards (therefore obscene) is manifestly discriminatory and sexist, not to mention absurd.”
He said he had been exposed to “absolutely horrific” content on his Facebook newsfeed in recent years, “including beheadings, cruelty to animals and crass, sexualised images of women and children. Yet my photographs of African women in cultural context and in their everyday attire are deemed offensive and unfit to be viewed by children.”
RESOCIALISING BOYS
According to Facebook, some nudity, “shared for a variety of reasons, including as a form of protest, to raise awareness about a cause, or for educational or medical reason”, is permitted. For example, “photographs of paintings, sculptures, and other art that depicts nude figures” are allowed. However, according to Wendy Squires, in her Sydney Morning Herald article ‘ Why are women’s nipples still regarded as ‘obscene’?’, which describes Rimmer’s ordeal, “What we are seeing with this ban is pure, indefensible sexism”.
I agree. The task of the prevention of lustful thoughts and sexually aggressive behaviour in men has apparently been handed to women. We all have mammary glands, but because men are aroused by women’s, it is the job of females to cover theirs, especially those ‘naughty’ nipples, to keep us men from going berserk.
How about socialising our boys to not only accept the fact that female breasts can and do arouse us, but also educate them to understand that their primary function is to feed newborns and that they are the main target for cancer in women, and are not placed on their chests merely for our pleasure?
Something so vital for the sustenance of life should never be vilified.
Michael Abrahams is a gynaecologist and obstetrician, comedian and poet. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and michabe_1999@hotmail.com, or tweet @mikeyabrahams
"breast" - Google News
December 15, 2021 at 12:08PM
https://ift.tt/3IOnVNv
Michael Abrahams | Should the female breast be censored? - Jamaica Gleaner
"breast" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2ImtPYC
https://ift.tt/2Wle22m
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Michael Abrahams | Should the female breast be censored? - Jamaica Gleaner"
Post a Comment