vs
I had a discussion with a friend of mine about this particular article titled: "Half-naked women storm streets promoting equal topless rights"
My initial response to seeing that article was:
So let no one go topless and that settles it? Men have to wear a tshirt when it's hot and women a bra. I don't really understand why this sort of thing needs a huge protest.
The women in the article claim to be promoting the right to walk around topless. They claim it is a double standard and that it's not fair that men can walk around shirtless while women must always wear at least a bra. They frame this issue as a gender equality issue, but upon further examination this issue is not actually a "feminist" issue primarily but is in fact about obscenity laws, censorship, and pornography.
What is obscenity?
What most people might not know is there is no universal definition for obscenity. There is no rational or logical way to define whether a piece of content or clothing or behavior is obscene. The definition for obscenity is always community defined, based upon the social norms of the community, and different communities have lists of behaviors, clothing, body parts, which are deemed "sexualized" and which are placed on the "obscene" list. What is or isn't considered obscene is entirely determined by social norms and not by any reasonable means, it's a community defined concept.
How obscenity is legally determined
Obscenity is legally determined by the Miller test. The Miller test is how society determines whether something is or isn't obscene:
And it's not based on reason. It's based on "you know it when you see it" or "if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck".
Obscenity laws are how censorship is encouraged and enforced
Ultimately we reach a question of censorship. Censorship is enforced by community norms, through obscenity laws. What is or isn't sexual is determined by whatever the zeitgeist is upset by. In western culture, women's nipples are "sexualized' in most communities. Necks on the other hand are not considered "sexualized" and are seen as innocuous to most western communities. Humans who are attracted to necks can see as much necks as they want because necks aren't considered sexual by the masses, but humans attracted to breasts are seen as perverted if they stare at them, but what is really going on?
The community of older males has decided that because most males in the community are attracted to a certain body part, that these body parts need to be covered up. It could be due to a genuine discomfort emotionally or physiologically, and this psychological discomfort is valid. Just as it is valid when a female feels psychological discomfort if she's being stared at in a way which leads her to believe the other party (usually male) is looking at her with sexual interest. The point here is that all emotions between humans have equal weight, and the sum of these emotions becomes the guiding force behind the social norm.
The emotions of parents are behind some of the unscientific reasons for producing laws to ban violent video games, or violent movies, or rap music, or satanic rock music, or sexuality. Parents have the instinct to protect their children from what they consider to be "dangerous ideas" and "dangerous minds". At the same time there are other people who manipulate these emotions to try to pass laws which may have nothing to do with protecting children, but which feel good. Irrational censorship laws are often the result, and the important point to understand is that there is no science behind "video games cause violence" just like there is no science behind "reefer madness" or "porn causes rape" or any of these memes floating around which people believe in subconsciously for irrational reasons but which have no basis in the scientific literature. It is important to realize that sometimes policies are set by emotions rather than by reason, and that emotions can over power reason quite easily when there is an angry or scared mob.
My conclusion
Social norms are stronger than and are even above law. We are a nation of social norms rather than a nation of laws. Why is this the case? Social norms get extra-judicial enforcement by vigilantes. The punishment for violating social norms could be organized shunning, could be targeted harassment, it might for example be that people in the porn industry experience discrimination in hiring, or social stigma, or it could be that people who write obscene literature are arrested and sentenced.
What is the lesson here? Social norms are about people's feelings and are not rational. Navigating the risk landscape depends on respecting people's feelings even more than respect for the law. If enough people feel a certain way, if enough people dislike a person, the law cannot protect that person. It is for this reason that violating social norms may be brave but not necessarily smart. At the same time social norms can be changed, and in order to change a social norm a discussion has to be initiated. I think the intent of these topless protests is to initiate a conversation around obscenity, censorship, pornography, etc. I think depending on the community, in some communities which are less conservative, which are less family oriented, they may be successful at changing the social norms. At the same time, a community which is conservative, family oriented, may at times also not be rational, and that sort of community isn't going to change it's social norms even if the norms are only in place to make the majority of people feel psychologically comfortable.
Causing psychological discomfort in people has a cost. This is a psychic cost, and it is the primary reason why we have in my opinion irrational social norms and laws. Obscenity laws in my opinion are completely irrational, but if a majority of people in a community or society are irrational, and feel more comfortable if certain behaviors are followed, then I'm inclined to accommodate that if it doesn't negatively affect me, merely because it's the smart thing to do most of the time. At the same time I recognize this 'safe" conformity isn't good for a society long term because it can slow the rate of evolution during a time where our social views will have to evolve at a much faster rate due to technological change. So I would say, it's a matter of carefully choosing battles, and whether someone chooses this particular battle or another is their personal political choice.
References