Why musicians in Spain are going topless as a radical gesture | Hacker News Reader

Why musicians in Spain are going topless as a radical gesture

theguardian.com

12 pointsaa_is_op24 comments

Do topless protests work? I remember turning the corner in Paris one summer and running into a FEMEN protest. A dozen bare chested women shouting. Their bare chests drew more attention, perhaps for the wrong reason, than the message. Like protests to allow women to go topless in general encounter this dilution of their message. It has made me wonder if topless protests work or is the public de-sensitized to topless women?

It does work because many people would remember such a protest clearly, as do you.

But I agree that it shouldn't work, making your comment masculine seems to make that more obvious:

Do shirtless protests work? I remember turning the corner in Paris one summer and running into a protest. A dozen bare-chested men shouting. Their bare chests drew more attention, perhaps for the wrong reason, than the message. Like protests to allow men to go shirtless in general encounter this dilution of their message. It has made me wonder if shirtless protests work or is the public de-sensitized to shirtless men?

It would be nice if this title made clear that there are boobs on display in that article, which isn't really "acceptable" in many workplaces :/

It's funny since the title of the article is ‘I don’t know why our boobs are so frightening’

You didn't think "topless" was a hint for something?

I thought the article would discuss the reason they are doing it and other related issues. I have no problem seeing boobs, I promise, but for example, this article would get you thrown out of a library.

> this article would get you thrown out of a library

I'm curious, in what country would that be the case?

Are there no books about Renaissance/Neoclassicist art in that library? Or biology for that matter?

By that logic, what would you expect to see in an article about child porn?

That sounds like a: https://www.thoughtco.com/false-analogy-fallacy-1690850

Child porn is illegal. Breasts are not.

Public nudity is very much taboo in the US, and illegal in many places. So unfortunately they kinda are here.

Still a false equivalence. You're overlooking the severity of the crime by orders of magnitude.

Going topless in America will probably get you a fine, or maybe 30 days in jail if the judge is having a bad day.

Child Porn will get you a decade if you're lucky and get you on a register for the rest of your life.

Not true at all, public nudity in the US can put you on the sex offenders list if the judge is having a bad day.

>In the United States, states have differing nudity and public decency laws.[4] In most states, state law prohibits exposure of the genitals and/or the female nipples in a public place, while in other states simple nudity is legal, but evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons (lewd conduct) is evidence of prohibited conduct. For example, in most states, it is a criminal offense punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and/or registered sex offender requirements and restrictions. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Public nudity itself has not been a crime throughout California since a 2000 Appellate Court ruling, and prosecutions and convictions are unheard of, but arrests do still occur, though they also are unusual,[5] and Vermont only prohibits "open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior"[6] so many forms of public nudity are legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indecent_exposure_in_the_Unite...

Well let's see...

If reading articles about topless musicians is part of your job, then it's part of your job and everyone in that workplace already knows that.

If it's not part of your job, then why are you doing it in the workplace?

The title did "warn" that there at least might be simply by topic and the publication.

How is one supposed to be ok with reading and thinking about breasts but not seeing them? What magical thing happens differently through the eyes as an image vs through the eyes as language?

...especially outside of a sexual context. (for those too terrified to risk looking, the single pic did not depict any sort of sex act)

I don't see even a hint of a valid argument here. I only see something, less wholesome than those breasts "on display".

„Topless“ is pretty obvious already, no?

No, a news article discussing something explicit does not always mean there will be explicit content.

Do ISIS beheading news articles always show ISIS beheading videos? Did news articles about the deposing of Ghadaffi show the videos of his body being mutilated? I remember having to see that on Liveleak.

America may be prude as fuck, but that doesn't mean everyone in the coffee shop seeing boobs on my screen understands that this is a news article. I WANT to read this article, but I can't because it's explicit. Sure, maybe that's a point in itself, but as a man, I'm not exactly going to win that societal level battle on my own.

you thought that The guardian would not deliver on the promise of the click baity title ?

The only thing I fear about the female breast is that someday I'll find it is erotic as the back of an elbow

That’s kind of the point.

Who does that actually serve?

Everyone? It isn’t psychologically healthy to objectify people as sexual objects, and it puts women in danger.

But I think it denies basic reptile-brain responses that are hard wired. Men can consciously fight those responses, but we can’t just make them go away, through training or legislation. Playboy didn’t build an empire because men love thinking about motherly love for babies.

The triune brain model is not supported by modern science, and we are perfectly capable of exercising control of our lower faculties with our higher ones.

Behavioral psychology is well established. Objectification of women is a cultural phenomenon, and a toxic one at that.

But I think you made my point. “Exercising control” (your words) is needed because there is a biological drive in play. Bared breasts triggers that drive to some degree. To pretend otherwise isn’t being honest.

A hundred years ago you would have been making the same argument about a woman’s legs. What is considered sexual and taboo is a matter of conditioning. Go visit a nudist resort and you’ll find out it’s super duper not sexual at all because they choose to make it that way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com