As with many great ethical issues of
our time, the question of whether it is acceptable to stare at a
woman's breasts is very simple, according to most people.
Unfortunately whether that is a simple 'yes' or a simple 'no' depends
entirely on who you are talking to.
Having risen out of the neolithic
1950s, women's rights are now the mainstream and it is well
established in Australian society that staring at a woman's chest is
rude, immature and grounds for a a well-deserved verbal thrashing.
Modern women should dress how they wish and be free from harassment.
Recipients of these thrashings on the
other hand, have been known to mutter that if women don't want their
breasts stared at, then why are they putting them on display? And it
is becoming increasingly difficult to argue that they aren't, with
plunging necklines, push-up bras and even breast enlargement surgery
becoming fairly normal in modern fashion. And it doesn't help that
the most common answer you get when asking women why they
dress like they do, if it's not to attract sexual attention, is “It
makes me feel good about myself”, a line which could be used to
justify just about anything.
These mutters have been increasing in
volume following the global Slut Walk
phenomenon in 2011 and the emergence of critical,
sexually-conservative feminists such as Professor Gail Dines,
author of PornLand:
How Porn Has Hijacked Our Sexuality.
More recently, two excellent articles in The Age sympathised
with and criticised
breast-staring, and the husband of the Finnish
President was caught
staring at a Danish princess' cleavage.
So the question has to be asked: what
exactly is wrong with staring at a woman's chest?
The basic argument put forward is that
staring at their bodies makes women feel uncomfortable. Naturally,
this is something one should avoid doing if at all reasonable. And as
numerous feminist commentators have noted, women tend to attract
unwanted sexual attention regardless of what they're wearing, with a
high-neckline and functional pants as likely to attract wolf-whistles
as a cocktail dress.
Furthermore, even if a woman is
wearing said cocktail dress, what right does that give men to stare
at her unless she wants them to? What does it matter if she is trying
to attract sexual attention? That is no justification for men to
stare at her across the room, knowing that it might make her feel
uncomfortable.
But while these
arguments reasonably assert a woman's right to dress how she wants
without being made to feel uncomfortable, they fail to address a very
important question which has long frustrated many men; why is it that
women have a right to dress as they want, but men aren't allowed to
look where they want? Since when did someone decree that there are
things 50% of the community can and cannot look at? How does that
contribute to gender equality exactly?
And from a feminist perspective,
doesn't the idea that men should not stare at a woman's breasts rely
on exactly the same puritanical ideas about sex that used to demand
women be covered up for the sake of 'decency'? To suggest that there
are parts of a woman that cannot be looked at by men implies that
these bits are special in some way; sacred if you will. And how much
of a step in logic is it from men respecting these 'special' bits, to
women being required to cover themselves thoroughly so as not to
tempt men and bring lustful attention upon themselves? Burquas,
anyone? Or Collingwood
football players perhaps?
Superficially, this argument is quite
strong. Two very fundamental rights are in conflict; how can one
demand one be respected at the expense of another?
But as the more astute of you are now
screaming at the screen, the issue is a bit more complicated than
that.
Why do men want to look at women's
cleavage? For the most part the answer is pretty straight forward –
we find them sexually appealing. Colossal media empires are built on
this simple fact.
But why do women object to having their
breasts stared at? Phaedra
Starling summarised the situation extremely concisely at the Shapely
Prose
blog, with a post entitled 'Schrödinger’s
Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being
maced';
“Consider: if every
rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t
it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a
little over one in sixty. … How do I know
that you, the nice guy who wants nothing more than companionship and
True Love, are not this rapist?
I don’t.”
And
here we have the problem. While men who stare at women's breasts may
be very clear on their motivations, women cannot know them. And given
the unbelievably high number of reported
sexual assaults, it is very reasonable for a woman to be worried
unrequited attention to her sexual parts.
And
just like that, the entire argument becomes very simple. What is more
important; a man's irritation at being told not to stare, or a
woman's fear that she may be sexually assaulted or raped? Because
that's likely to be consequence of staring at a strange woman's
breasts and it is an entirely reasonable one given the stats.
So
what can we take from this?
Men,
you do have the right to look where you want. But given that looking
at some parts of a woman's body are likely to cause her such serious
and reasonable fear, just don't do it.
It's not like there's a shortage of breasts you openly invited to
look at after all, so be considerate. And as Ms Starling so
eloquently puts it, being considerate actually makes you more
attractive.
Women,
you absolutely have the right to dress as you want and should be free
to do so. But be aware that often, men simply so not understand why
staring at what you're displaying makes you feel so uncomfortable. So
while flaunting your body is completely acceptable, be aware that it
will create a lot of resentment from men who feel repressed for doing
something you seem to be inviting. And for the love of goodness, do
not try to manipulate men with your sexuality. Sex may well be power,
but only when men play by your rules. Sometimes they decide not to.
Well argued, but strongly undermined by your gender disguised conclusions; I read, and believe both apply to everyone.
ReplyDeleteTo me, a right to comfort and the inverse social obligation to facilitate the comfort of others seems to self contradict.
As with my dim view on a rigid form of manners, I approach this issue on a case by case basis, as a generalized approach seems in my case unfeasible.