Post with 20 notes
How horrible is it that they can show all kinds of violence and bullshit on TV, even poorly-handled scenes of torture, but they can’t show boobs?
It is so offensive and dehumanizing to declare someone’s chest sexual and vulgar, to require it to be hidden. It is so sexist and cissexist to only do this to “women’s chests.”
Ugh.
P.S. I’m topless. Fuck you if you find that offensive or inherently sexual.
I swear to god I will lose my mind if I hear the “sex sells” fallacy one more time. Sex does not sell. If sex sold, we would see penises where we see boobs. Naked men would be on everything that naked women are on. Sex isn’t what they’re selling you. They’re selling you an impossible, pornographically fueled misogynistic idea of the perfect woman.
Link reblogged from Feminish On Tumblr with 1 note
This article is pretty loaded. I would love to hear people’s opinions, less on the overall general subject (though of course you may comment on this matter if you wish), but more so with regards to the article itself. I look forward to your responses. :-)
I find it problematic that body parts are “in style” or “out of style.” They’re body parts. They’re also usually women’s body parts, or so it seems. Big hips, small hips. Big boobs, small boobs. Thin women are “in.” Nevermind, it’s all about curvy women. And, when one kind of body is “in fashion,” other kinds of bodies are disparaged.
No way. Bodies are bodies, and I hate that people focus on particular bodies as a fashion thing. I’m not a fan of the article in general. The tone is a classic “gay guy joking about boobs” tone, which is slightly funny and totally unoriginal.
The only good I see in this is that small-breasted women are seen as beautiful, maybe more than they used to be? Small-breasted women are beautiful. A lot of people are beautiful. We don’t need fashion to tell us that.
