'B is for breasts, of which ladies have two; once prized for the function, now for the view'

I have recently come across an interesting cooking group - what sets them apart is that they are a naked vegan cooking group. They have a blog full of delicious recipes alongside pictures of them cooking in whatever state the individuals involved feel comfortable (some have the confidence to be completely naked whilst others stop at underwear). Whilst they have produced some delicious recipes, the aim of the group is to promote a positive body image. Their campaigns have involved both men and women going shirtless in public places. Within minutes of women taking their shirts off on these campaigns they are approached by police officers and asked to cover up. By contrast, the men are allowed to remain shirtless. On the naked vegan cooking group blog a woman, who has been asked more than once by policemen to not be shirtless in public, has expressed her thoughts about the situation. I think she brings some interesting ideas to light but I'm not entirely sure I agree with everything she claims. I've been going over this in my head and disturbing friends by sharing my thoughts for a while now, so I thought I'd mash something together in a blog.

I'll try to create a summary of what she wrote about here. Her main focus is the discrimination between a shirtless man and woman (I'll save my thoughts on this for after this summary). In situations where she has been asked to cover herself, summer festivals or during campaigns, her frustration lies in the fact that men have not been asked to do the same - a shirtless man is acceptable in public. Her indignation resides over the sexualised public response towards a shirtless woman. By contrast, a man who wants to soak in the sunshine on a warm day will not risk harassment. In the same context, a man's behaviour is neutral, whereas a woman's is indecent. This woman mainly stresses that there is a societal attitude towards a woman's body as 'a sexual object first and foremost'. I'm sort of with her up to this point, not entirely, but I'll expand on this in a moment. This woman continues in her article to suggest that the issue 'is not having breasts, it is being a woman'. She proposes that the deciding factor of allowing someone to go topless is their gender - for example, if an androgynous person were to go topless she proposes the deciding factor is whether they are a woman.

This is the link to her article, it's definitely worth a read - http://nakedvegancooking.com/2012/01/15/632

So, there you have it. I think she certainly raises some interesting points but I have my doubts about a few.

There are aspects of nudism I admire. When you think about it, the human body is a beautiful thing. Thinking from an art historian's perspective, consider, for example, the delicacy and power in the muscles of the back. I attend life drawing classes and whilst there is the initial phenomena of the naked individual amongst a clothed group, there is a move to observing the model as a work of art - a neutral figure. So, I can appreciate the desire to embrace your body as a neutral, beautiful thing and, therefore, see no difference between a man and a woman appearing shirtless in public. I often get the feeling that bodies are overly sexualised and it's wonderful to just appreciate them as works of art without further implications.

I can sympathise with this woman's frustration over being asked to cover up in public. Many articles written about her experience have been condescending and suggested that she was asking for harassment - one applauded a policeman for not openly staring at her chest. What needs to be noted is that she was not inviting people to sexualise her. From her perspective she was enjoying nature and trying to share her view of the human body with others. It seems bizarre, but I see her as having more dignity than women who dress overly provocatively on a night out. Whilst I don't want to completely shoot myself in the foot here, and do respect that it is enjoyable as a woman to dress nicely, possibly expose more flesh than one would normally, there is a line that I have seen crossed where I wonder why some women bother wearing clothes at all. I think the difference between this female nudist and scantily clad women is purpose. It would be foolish to deny your awareness as a woman of what message you are sending with your body and what response you may receive to that message.

However, there are a couple of ideas she raised that I do not agree with.

I came across a concept in Philosophy this term that has cleared up a lot of ideas for me - equality of consideration. Equality of consideration takes account of the differences between certain groups, therefore, giving them equal weight in a decision, but not treating them in exactly the same way. For example, when applying equality of consideration to animal rights it would seem ridiculous to provide animals with the same political rights as humans because they don't have the capacity to exercise those rights - but their needs can be considered equally. I think this is a positive way to account for difference.

I feel it would be more productive to consider the shirtless case using equality of consideration. It seems to me that this female nudist has not really acknowledged the difference in male and female anatomy. I don't think the discrimination between a shirtless man and woman is because of gender. The female breast plays a fundamentally different role to that of a man. Firstly, consider breastfeeding. That function is linked to procreation, so the female breast has more of a sexual role than the male chest. Furthermore, the female breast is linked to sexual stimulation in a way that the male chest is not. I don't intend to justify the way the female chest is sexualised, but I do want to point out that it's sexual nature is not entirely ungrounded. However, I do agree with this woman's view that female breasts have been and are overly sexualised - consider the ridiculous fuss people create over a woman breastfeeding in public. Therefore, the sexualised female chest does have a biological basis, but society has exacerbated this focus, and I find the nudist approach of admiring the body in a naturally beautiful manner refreshing.

A further point that I do not think is entirely correct is the assertion that a shirtless man is viewed neutrally. Women enjoy ogling shirtless men. Simple as that. Everyone knows that scenario where men go shirtless in the park on a summer day and women indulge in a little eye-candy. I've had male friends share anxieties over experiences such as this because they are aware of the way they are being observed and want to be viewed positively. I'm not denying that there is certainly a more sexual element to observing a shirtless woman, however, it should be acknowledged that a shirtless man is not entirely neutral either.

I wrote this blog to try and sort out my ideas, however, I think I've probably complicated the matter for myself. I think this complication resides over the balance between considering the body as a natural or sexual thing. And then of course there is the further complication of debating the relationship between nature and sex. I think there is a greater difference between the male and female chest than this woman is willing to admit, however, I do agree with her that this difference has been exacerbated and I sympathise with her frustration.

When sharing with friends that I was writing this blog I have been frequently asked if I would consider nudism. In fact, I got a text from a friend who had seen a perfume advertised and suggested it become my new scent - 'sensuous nude' by Estee Lauder! Personally, I don't have the confidence to engage in nudism but have concluded that I could tie being a nudist in to my future plan - when reaching the age of about seventy I intend to live in Florence, eat copious amounts of Italian food, harass people in the Uffizi with my artistic knowledge and... possibly engage in some casual nudism on the side?