What’s in a nipple and why are female nipples so controversial for social media corporations? Why is visibility of female nipples cause for police harassment and police arrest in countries around the world considering that it is in most countries considered fully acceptable to bare other parts of female breasts as long as not baring the nipples themselves?
Public décolletage and public bikini top are legally accepted in nearly all jurisdictions around the world and it is generally considered socially acceptable to exhibit all other parts of female breasts in public. Yet female nipples and solely female nipples only are taboo and we hence need ask whom it offends and why as considering that there is taboo as regards exposing male nipples.
First need we emphasize that this prohibition is extra-judicial considering that it does not apply to male nipples. Facebook posts that include male nipples are not systematically deleted by Facebook inc. Males who are barebreasted do not even remotely risk becoming arrested by the patriarchal police.
Interestingly is it other parts of female breasts that are structurally eroticized and considered sexually arousing and not the nipples themselves. Yet why is it considered permissible to out the ostensibly arousing parts of the female breasts yet not the in and of itself non-arousing part? We need thus also consider why female nipples unlike other parts of female breasts are not considered offensive.
The international FEMEN moderate radical feminist movement has become world famous for rejecting this irrational taboo in FEMEN staging marches and public performance art with the purpose of exposing the irrational and prejudicial nature of patriarchal oppression.
This brings us to the wider question of compulsory veiling of bodies, namely disguising some or all parts of the body in the interest of perpetuation of sexual repression.
Why is public veiling of female head hair enforced in some Muslim countries and why is there no comparable state-enforced veling of male head hair?
There is clearly a cross-anthropological comparison to be made between compulsory veiling of female head hair and compulsory veiling of female nipples considering that this compulsory veiling applies to female bodies and to female bodies alone.
First are nipples at the center of breastfeeding and public breastfeeding is also considered controversial despite usually not showing bare nipples, yet not other parts of female breasts and second do female nipples frequently cause turnoff (abjection) in men. At the same time are female breasts typically considered more sexually arousing when the usually intrinsically non-arousing nipples are shown. Why is thus why female nipples alone are widely considered turnoff yet as exhibited as part of female breasts generally are considered sexually arousing or at least so if the female in question is considered conventionally sexually attractive.
While this is obviously pure unreason is there nevertheless a misogynistic logic to this dialectic of Oidipal abjection/arousal. It is common for males to experience abjection after the often at least partly involuntary process of ejaculation. A female hitherto considered attractive thus suddenly becomes ugly. A female hitherto considered sexy suddenly becomes slutty. A female hitherto considered enviable suddenly becomes unenviable. He wakes up in the morning and asks himself “How could I f*ck that ugly bitch?”
In order to understand this need we investigate the process of the one-night stand. Why is it that he does not want to have sex with her in the morning despite him having wanted and having had sex with her during the night? Why does he not to wish to befriend her considering that there is nothing more friendly than having sex? Why is it that he coveted her for sexual penetration, yet rejected her after waking up in the morning together with a real person with emotions and sensitivities and not merely a depersonalized sexual object?
Why does heteroculture typically consider it turnoff for females to reveal their sexual arousal whether in words or in body/facial language? These of course are important questions to consider and respond to in some detail.
While there is no doubt that there are largely subconscious psychological processes of arousal/abjection at play is there no doubt that the underlying issues are 1) patriarchal control over female bodies, 2) patriarchal control over reproduction and 3) patriarchal control over public space.
This brings us to the question of sexually motivated compulsory disguising of bodies. Is there a legitimate comparison to be made between compulsory veiling of female head hair and compulsory veiling of female pubic hair?
These are simply varying degrees of patriarchal veiling of female bodies as imposed by ethnocracy. Where is no logic whatsoever to veiling one part of the body yet not another. It needs be emphasized that male testicles and the male phallus are the only parts of the male body which are subject to compulsory government enforced veiling and it is an interesting question as to why this is so?
Compulsory public veiling of entire human bodies or parts thereof are generally justified by recourse to public sensibility. In the Muslim world is it openly argued that some, most or all parts of female bodies must be disguised so as to prevent male sexual arousal. It seems that the only reason for public veiling of male genitalia is the risk of erection as male public erection is considered a sex crime.
This brings us to the question as to why transfemales are systematically sexually harassed in public space by plainclothes police intelligence agents, but also why the police invests such immense resources in this bizarre endeavor in the first place?
The police and internal police kangaroo secret “courts” internally claim that sexually attractive visibly LGBTQI persons threaten public order. But which order? Of course this is the semiotic order of ethnocratic patriarchy as sexually attractive visibly LGBTQI persons surely do not cause any public disturbance by merely being out of the closet in public space.
Heavily primping females are commonly subjected to sexual harassment in public space by uniformed police officers and plainclothes police intelligence agents alike. Of course this too is entirely irrational. What possibly could be offensive about enhanced beauty and good taste?
The anthropological answer to all those questions is that ethnocratic patriarchy considers itself obliged to control sexual arousal, in the sense as preventing sexual arousal in human beings. It may seem bizarre that thoroughly criminal police intelligence invests immense resources in seeking to control human beings from experiencing sexual arousal and it truly is very strange indeed, yet that is precisely what they do.
While this could simply be described as one among many bizarre, exotic and outlandish anthropological practices in cultures around the world is there more to it. This is simply about perpetuation of performative structural repression of sexuality. Police preventive-arousal activities are thus not an isolated pattern of police crime but rather form part of efforts throughout society by ethnocratic patriarchy to control and suppress human intimate desire.
There is no question that feminist practices of making cosmetic demands for legislative change are entirely insufficient and that we instead need a cosmetic semiotic revolution whereby feminists semiotically challenge patriarchal control over public space. Collective primping is one of the most effective means for doing so. There have so far been three main formats for doing this in an organization fashion. These are 1) LGBTQI Pride parades, 2) FEMEN protest events and 3) SlutWalks.
We need now wage feminist semiotic revolt everywhere by challenging ethnocratic patriarchal control over public space. We need do this in ways which are strictly law-abiding without intention of offending the public. We need do this by both public activism and by means of artivist feminist performance art which does not constitute activism in a legal sense. The regime of ethnocratic patriarchy is based on sexual repression and so need we perform Foucauldian biopolitics of semiotic warfare everywhere until ethnocratic patriarchy crumbles and the collective psychosis of irrational sexual repression is fully dismantled and supplanted by ethico-rational limits of feminist court etiquette.
It is clear that structural repression of sexuality as imposed on others is a form of sexual harassment and is hence illegal under law. The feminist social revolution must thus not break laws but rather ensure that they are fully enforced. Thoroughly criminal police intelligence will of course claim that their systematic sexual harassment against members of the public is performed with the purpose of preventing sexual harassment. That fallacy of an argument is of course an effective argument in discrediting dissenting citizens and carrying out miscarriage of justice. Yet is is legally a distinctly unpersuasive argument that organized police sexual harassment against innocent citizens is performed with the purpose of preventing sexual harassment.
Fifth-wave polymorphous feminism as a united movement for universal emancipation against structural oppression generally needs mobilize for global feminist semiotic revolt in strict compliance with law as a means of civic law enforcement in order so to put an end to pervasive extra-judicial ethnocratic patriarchal practices of enforcement of sexual repression. Sexual repression is about ethnocratic patriarchy endeavoring to control bodies of females, LGBQTI persons, youth and children; indeed endeavoring to irrationally control human beings generally.
This is of course irrational since this causes unhappiness to heterocultural men in the form of typically severely painful sexual deprivation. Heterocultural men feel helpless and powerless in their state of sexual deprivation and so experience a need to control everything that triggers sexual arousal in them and thus makes them feel helpless and powerless due to being socially incompetent in not having been taught by anyone how to conduct themselves.
Rather than learning how to conduct themselves in ways which cause sensations of pleasure in others such as treating others exquisitely well, learning erotic body language, learning primping skills, using sensual clothing etc. do these idiots of patriarchal scumbags resort to trying to neutralize almost anything that trigger their own sense of sexual helplessness in therefore challenging nefarious patriarchal control over public space.
Heterocultural men who sexually harass generally do this as means of exercising power over objects of desire as it is certainly not performed out of love. They experience a distinctive need to attack and offend expression of sensuality in bodies of others as a means to perpetuate individually internalized structural sexual repression. Patriarchal scumbags are offended by barebreasted FEMEN activists on account of this triggering sexual arousal in those very patriarchal scumbags. Sexual harassers whether acting on behalf of police intelligence or in a private capacity therefore experience a need sexually harass others due to their own physical erections. As it happens is this is not coincidentally precisely what rape is about. The united Feminist Social Revolution as armed in feminist semiotic warfare hence needs attack the root of the problem with strictly law-abiding means of civic law enforcement in therefore dismantling the semiotic tyranny of sexual repression as underpinning ethnocratic patriarchy.
The Intelligence Entrapment Methods documentation project.