The Trouble With Nipples

This is a small part of a much larger issue in terms of how we see ourselves, and construct how others might see us, and how we adapt our behaviour to avoid conflict and being considered 'other'. It would be easy to dismiss the concerns raised here by saying entities have either formal dress codes or informal accepted norms of behaviour which we implicitly buy into in order to be considered part of that entity and be compensated in terms of security, remuneration and status, an implicit trade off.

However a broader look at how social controls are gendered and how women in particular have been controlled through dress and behaviour codes suggests there is more to the example discussed here. Accepted norms have changed quite drastically over the last century but are still restrictive. Place this in the larger context about debates regarding dress within specific cultural and religious groups to appreciate some of the inconsistencies around Western society's expectations of women. 

Self censorship has been considered more effective than external controls, and our fear of  'offence' and the constructs of the harm of offence do far more to enforce conformity than more formal rules. It is our fear of being judged, a judgement perhaps restricted to a small minority, that keeps us in line and discourages adventurousness, exploration and self fulfillment. Inthe current context it is likely to be the fear of judgement of males that is most effective in altering women's self image and self esteem, entrenching the Myth of Eve around body shame, even if there is a blatant double standard. Or as has been stated - why should the alleged inability of the male to control their urges force women to hide? These arguments have arisen many times over history and women have at various times been told that hair, forearms, shoulders, ankles and knees can engender unbridled lust in males and that for their own safety they must conceal all these, but they have progressively appeared without widespread evidence of moral decay and increased violence against women. Initself this invites a reductio ad absurbum extrapolation. Although largely discredited now, a common defence in rape cases was that women 'asked for it' by contravening dress norms and sent signals inviting violation of their persons.

Just a brief review of recent media reports around the issues Elizabeth raises reveal the same moral panics, the same fears of the powers of a woman's body (weapons of mass destruction), and the same demands for the suppression of women's creativity and self expression. While social mores, as opposed to ethical morality are geographical, cultural and temporal and will undoubtedly change, it has usually required the courage of a few, often at the price of personal sacrifice, to bring about those changes.

 

Suzanne Lenglen (1899-1938) smashing dress taboos by baring her arms in the 1920s, for which she was assaulted

 

Further reading

Game, sex and match. Times June 25 2007

 

 

I was responding to your comments about "leering men" as an expression of male gaze.

The last time I was asked about this I replied:

The question of why women turn against women is often raised  - the answer usually given by the social scientist is that they have so internalised patriarchal values as to a woman's place in the world, that they feel the need to become the keepers of discipline. These women feel that if they allow women to express themselves, men will oppress women even further.

Amar Wahab writing in the Caribbean Review of Gender Studies describes Indian women in the Caribbean in Colonial times (1): 

The imaging of Indian women in families or as respectable subjects points to a project of optic surveillance and regulation, containing their freedom of mobility, sexual licence, and choices of survival. This served to bolster not only Anglo and possibly Creole hegemonies, but also restored to Indian patriarchy some measure of control over Indian women‘s bodies and lives...the figure of the Indian woman was indeed an exhibit of her disciplinary containment, reflective of the rationality of colonial governance and possibly her imposed self-governance as a consensual gendered subject

Michèle Alexandre  also makes this observation about how feminist scholars have "internalised patriarchal classifications of women’s bodies." (2) And perhaps just as cogently she refers to the work of Elizabeth Iglesias:

Elizabeth Iglesias confirms that “feminists have long recognized that
the dominant images of women represent us as mother, virgin, or whore.
Indeed, many feminists have linked violence against women to the ways in
which these images circulate in cultural narratives and the psychic structures of
individual men and women.” (3) These social constructions of women have
isolated the female body from its inherent characteristic—that it is intrinsically,
completely, and unilaterally a woman’s domain to dispose of at her sole
discretion.

That is that women must reclaim the ability to decide how they wish to express themselves rather than conform to patriarchal construction that retains privilege by the imposition of a binary narrative.

She continues:

Less attention has been paid to women’s symbolic expressions of resistance
and liberation through their bodies. These forms of resistance are generally
unpopular and run the risk of being viewed as perpetuations of patriarchy.
However, they can be used as tools to combat sexism and the
disenfranchisement of women. Welcoming these modes of resistance as
legitimate feminist weapons will fortify the feminist movement and help
overcome the misgivings and stereotypes that women themselves often carry
about “proper uses” of the female body.

1. Wahab A. Race, Gender, and Visuality: Regulating Indian Women Subjects in the Colonial Caribbean CRGS November 2008 Issue 2

2. Alexandre M. Dancehalls, Masquerades, Body Protest and the Law: The Female Body as a Redemptive Tool Against Trinidad and Tobago’s Gender-biased Laws CRGS April 2007 Issue 1

3. Iglesias E. Rape, Race and Representation: The Power of Discourse, Discourses of
Power, and the Reconstruction of Heterosexuality, 49 VAND. L. REV. 868, 886, 902 (1996)

 

 

I was attending various events for GLBTQ Pride week in my area. I noticed that there were a small but significant number of women who were topfree except for tape over the nipples. (I also noticed there were a small but significant women who had fake mustaches, but that's not relevant here.) I saw only one who didn't bother with the tape. A possible bit of irony is that the tape tends to draw more attention to the breasts and their supposed "forbidden nature" than going entirely bare-chested.

Nipples generally don't show very much through men's clothes, probably in part because they're smaller and shirts tend to be a bit loose or slack in that part of the chest. Whereas with women, they're bigger and shirts are often tighter in that region due to the protrusion of the breasts. Add in the fact that women have mostly worn bras for the past 150 years, and tend to "compensate" when they don't - most people aren't used to seeing those two small fabric bumps, so it looks odd and out of place. Like the nipple tape, it draws attention to that region which you would not be staring at if you weren't thinking about sex, which causes you to uproductively start thinking about sex (if you're a hetero male, anyway) to compensate. Or if female, unproductively obsess in a catty jealous manner. And other weird psychobabble effects which probably aren't actually true but people will spout off as common wisdom anyway.

The double standard between lactating nipples and the less useful non lactating nipples on men is annoying at best and  a blow to freedom for half the population. 

Seriously men can go topless in the street and no-one cares, a woman goes topless and the crowd stops and reacts with either approval or disapproval as if it's their place to object or approve.

The human form can be attractive, repulsive  or uninteresting but the issue here is two tags of flesh surrounded by darker skin. The nipple. what is so dangerous about the potentially lactating nipple?

Is it disease? the health department regulates lactating nipples in food service because of the potential for ... milk? Seriously. noses are a greater danger for bodily fluid that carry disease. What is it that milk carries again? Oh antibodies, fat and protein. 

Beaches are topless or not but only in regards to potentially lactating nipples. Men once more can bare their chests with no restriction.

It can't be out of respect for motherhood as even breastfeeding is mostly deigned appropriate if out of sight.

What drives Americans to so strongly disapprove of or salaciously approve of nipple displays? 

I like nipples, I like some nipples more than others, but the nipples that I see are other people's nipples, so if I like them or not I have no place judging the people attached to those nipples any more than if I like or dislike a nose. 

So Elizabeth, wear your apple green tank top with pride, and if you don't wear it at work, well it's their loss. And if you do wear it at work then the reactions of the people around you give you the opportunity to push back at the social norms and tell the leering or negative judgement oriented folks to stuff it.

The power of the nipple. As you mentioned Janet Jackson's NippleGate-- it launched  an FCC resurgence of undefined media fines for almost any possible sexual theme for years afterwards, making a hard time for most of us who had previously talked sex on the radio .  

As a small breasted woman, with little need for "support", my very evident nipples, have nonetheless caused me much of the distress you mention, Elizabeth.  I've chosen to be braless 99% of my life for the past 30 years. I love my nipples, admittedly am even egotistically proud of their shape sometimes, and am most pleased at how well they served during two years of breast feeding. But I go braless not because I can "expose" the power of my nipples, but because of the discomfort from the bras (straps falling and cups rising) and the subliminally false-advertizing that bras give of uplifted shape and augmented looking breast size.Yet, I always worry about the degree of respect for those who innocently have to view my bralessness.  Most especially, teen boys, and additionally I worry if I am a poor role model for young girls i.e.: leading them astray from expected norms. Really, those things actually go through my check list of " is my choice a responsible one?" An erect nipple even under a loose fitting shirt, feels like what I assume a man must worry about when his penis erects visibly under his pants. But the nipple ( I remember the term "headlights" in high school) and will definitely check out Low Beams) is more up front and center, so to speak. Are evident nipples an immodest in -your- face affront to others?  While our very strange society welcomes the tease of the upper breast cleavage everywhere, the curve of an under- breast ( as in a crop top) and most especially the nipple are somehow more blatantly sexual. Presumably, the underside of a braless breast entices symbolic  "cupping" or makes the viewer acknowledge they are peeking from under. And the nipple's color contrast, and ability to soften and point ,make them actionable, rather than passive. One assumes that the still controversial topic of public breast feeding is additionally fueled by reason that fluids actually come out of the nipples, too, should one flash out of a baby's mouth. When I stripped in NJ a few decades ago at an all nude club, the law stated we had to cover our nipples, if alcohol was served. Legs could be straddled wide open, subject to a certain number of inches from a viewer's face--or stretched out arm--but the clubs' management "solved" the forbidden revelation of nipples, by having us each camouflage them with a layer of painted on flesh- toned latex.  But I need to address my own hypocrisies as much as society's. When a dress requires a more proportioned top look, I'll wear a bra. Likewise, when my pointed nipples themselves make a top look ill-fitted, a bra wins out again for my self-appeal to look good. Years ago, when a handsome new lover  took off his shirt, revealing somewhat  puffy, feminine nipples, I ended the night quickly. (Thankfully, my definition of sex and gender has greatly matured since then.) But case to point, why was it his pronounced nipples, in an otherwise "standardly" gorgeous male specimen that frightened my sense of desiring him? It was the aspect of his femininity overpowering my own sense of nipplehood. Tit for tat. And so, this summer, like any other, I go braless-- unquestionably so, for any fun event at night; a preview analysis in the mirror under various lights for about-the-town-errands attire; and either donning a bra or wearing a fabric of thicker material and/or with a nipple covering pattern for all else.  Now, when to wear panties or not?

So how can we ever transform the perception of the nipple if women like you don't wear them proudly? If it weren't so late and I weren't a little tired, I might wax Butlerian about performativity and iteration. 

 Years ago, when I was in my mid to late thirties, I was teaching a linguistics class in which the same two women sat in the center of the class directly in front of me. One day, I walked into the room wearing a form-fitting pullover shirt underneath a sports jacket. The classroom was very warm and so, before I started to teach, I took the jacket off. At the same as I did that, the two women started whispering and giggling to each other. We were an informal group and often chatted for a few minutes before I began the day’s lesson, and so I asked them if they could share what was so funny. “Oh, it’s nothing, nothing,” one of them said.

I began to write on the board the beginnings of what we would be covering that day, and when I turned around to look at the notes on my desk, the women started giggling again, giving each other significant looks, and when I looked in their direction, they started laughing outright, though because they were trying to suppress the laugher, the were actually sputtering quite noisily more than they were actually laughing.

I suggested that it might be better for them to step outside and get their giggles out than for them to continue disrupting the class. I was not angry when I said this, but they looked chastened, and then one of them said, “I’m sorry. It’s just that your nipples are erect,” and at that, of course, the whole class broke out in uncomfortable laughter, probably including me, since I have no memory of how I responded; even now, I am not sure precisely how I would respond--though I think I am now older enough than my students that such a thing would probably never happen. 

That Elizabeth’s post should remind of this story is not surprising, though I would never argue that my experience is at all parallel to hers. Still, it is interesting to think about the gender reversal in my story and what it reveals. For example, while I can (of course) easily imagine male students giggling and ogling a female professor whose nipples were visible through her shirt, I find it hard to imagine those same students admitting that this is what they were doing, especially in front of the entire class, unless they were using the admission in some way to challenge the professor’s authority, to bring her down a notch, so to speak--which the women in my class were not trying to do to me.

There is in here an interesting knot about sexual boundaries and how they are defined both for and by men and women in public spaces that is worth tugging at.

Here's a story by Chris Matyszczyk about jeweler Victoria Buckley's Facebook fan page.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20010205-71.html

The page was initially censored by Facebook after some complaints about a photo which showed a doll (created by artist Marina Bychova) helping to display Buckley's jewelry. The doll was naked, and yes, with nipples. 

Buckley points out that pages displaying Michelangelo's David are apparently above criticism despite their showing the statue's sculpted penis. 

According to the article, Facebook eventually apologized and encouraged Buckley to repost the photo. I continue to wonder whether complaints are ever made about the David images, and if they are whether Facebook takes those complaints as seriously as they apparently take complaints about nipples.  

 

It's not that they're not proud of their nipples. They are. It's about comfortability. Some women are comfortable not wearing any bra. You wouldn't understand. Well, at least that's what my wife always tells me. I don't understand anything about being a woman.

I had a boyfriend who had a term for when my perked nipples became visible through a tee shirt. He'd say I was, "Smuggling raisins." Though I'd never heard this term before, it's prosaic enough -- along the lines of "camel toe." However, whenever he'd point out that I was "Smuggling raisins," he'd do so with a sly, boyish grin like he was letting me know I was walking around with a milk moustache without knowing it. But there was another layer to this observation/commentary -- it felt like a minor jab at me for exposing a shade of my sexual self to the world. In a monogamous relationship like ours was, we had an agreement to share our sexual selves exclusively with one another. But I wonder, if a perked nipple signals a shade of sexuality, is total exclusivity a reasonable expectation for people who practice monogamy? Certainly there's a big difference between a perked nipple and a one-night-stand. But are we so linear in our thinking about sex and relationships that we can't make a full separation between two such different circumstances?

Of course there's also the biological reality that a perked nipple isn't always the result of sexual arousal. Temperature, friction, a gust of wind might all be responsible for a "perk up." And I'm told this can happen to men's penises as well. (The term for this, thank you same BF, is NRB: no reason boner). So, Elizabeth, the next time you wear your green tank top, bear in mind there might be something going down (ahem, up, rather) in the trousers of your onlookers. But do you really care? Didn't think so.

Jill, thanks for the "smuggling raisins" image. (Or more properly, thanks to your ex boyfriend). For some reason I find it amusing. It conjures up a childlike silliness that makes me smile.

When I began reading your story I thought it was going somewhere different. I imagined your boyfriend was telling you with that sly boyish grin as if to say "we're sharing a secret and letting the world get a little peek at it" - so that the shared assumption was that the world could see a bit of the sexual connection shared between you - a kind of exhibitionistic monogamy, perhaps.  Seems the reality was quite the opposite. Interesting, all the embedded assumptions that weave through our intimate relationships as well as through our interactions with strangers. There is no social order without sets of shared assumptions, but I wonder how shared some of them really are.