Why Are We So Offended By Women’s Bodies?
The miracle of motherhood is celebrated until we have to see it
Breastfeeding is natural. In fact, some people will judge you if you don’t breastfeed. We live in a society that largely accepts and even encourages breastfeeding.
As long as no one has to see it.
In the US, the public only wants to see breasts if they’re sexualized. Cleavage? Sure. Side boob? Absolutely. Breastfeeding? Oh, no, cover yourself up!
What is this twisted logic?
Breasts are meant for the male gaze
Recently, a billboard was removed by Clear Channel from Times Square because it showed a topless pregnant woman, Molly Baz, with oatmeal cookies covering her breasts. It was an ad for a lactation cookie recipe created by Baz in partnership with the breastfeeding start-up Swehl.
The reason for it being removed? Clear Channel stated that it violated “guidelines on acceptable content.”
Apparently, the suggestion of a woman breastfeeding is “unacceptable.”
And no, it’s not because Baz was exposing too much skin. Walk through Times Square, or anywhere in this country for that matter, and you’ll see plenty of billboards with half-naked people, men and women.
We’re all so used to seeing the chiseled abs on men advertising Calvin Klein underwear and the skinny yet curvy models in Victoria’s Secret ads that we barely even notice them anymore.
So what’s so offensive about a pregnant woman exposing her belly and most of her breasts?
Nudity is only acceptable if it’s sexualized. If it’s in the context of breastfeeding, it’s deemed “unacceptable.”
Women are pressured to not only give birth but also to breastfeed, but they must do this all behind closed doors. It’s too hard on some people’s eyes to witness the reality of being an actual birthing person.
We’re just uncomfortable with women’s bodies
This isn’t the first time ads have been pulled for exposing women to be more than just sexualized objects.
In 2020, Frida, a company that sells products to help new parents, had a TV commercial for Frida Mom products.
The commercial showed a realistic depiction of postpartum, featuring a new mom in mesh underwear, struggling to urinate and change her maxi pads, as we hear a newborn crying in the background.
This commercial is powerful in its utterly realistic portrayal of parenthood. It was also rejected by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science to be aired during the Oscars. The Academy wrote a letter to Frida, suggesting they advertise “a kinder, more gentle portrayal of postpartum.”
You would think an organization dedicated to cinematic excellence would embrace a truthfully told story. But nope. Society just isn’t ready to acknowledge a woman’s body if it isn’t there for the male gaze.
Then there is THINX, the leakproof period underwear that had to fight to get its ads on the New York City subway.
One ad features a peeled half grapefruit, suggestive of a vagina. The other is an egg yolk out of its shell, open to interpretation whether it’s a woman’s egg or it simply represents something oozing out. Either way, there’s nothing overly sexual about these ads.
Outfront Media, the company that sells ads on the subway, had concerns about these ads being “inappropriate.”
Have you seen subway ads? One is for breast augmentation, featuring a woman holding up two grapefruits representing what your potential new breasts could be. So to be clear, grapefruits are okay when they’re supposed to be large breasts, but not when they’re menstruating vaginas. Got it.
If we’re so concerned about fruit representing genitalia, are we going to start censoring the images of bananas?
There’s also the subway ad for The Weight Loss Collection featuring a woman in a skimpy bikini with the question, “Are You Beach Body Ready?’
There’s nothing wrong with a woman in a skimpy bikini, but it feels hypocritical to say that’s okay but a peeled half grapefruit is “inappropriate.”
What they mean is not “inappropriate.” What they really mean is, “we don’t want to think about women’s bodies in nonsexualized ways.”
Let’s not forget the taboo of period blood. So taboo, in fact, that we have to depict it as blue in period product commercials. You know the ads where they show how absorbent your pad or tampon is when soaked in a bright blue substance.
While the demonstration is helpful, I’m not soaking my tampons in Windex. I need to know how well they absorb period blood. You know, the red substance.
Some products challenged this norm (if you want to call blue period blood normal) by showing red liquid in their ads. The first was Bodyform, a UK brand, in 2017, followed shortly by Cora, a small US startup, one year later.
Cora’s ads didn’t come without complaints, and Instagram and Facebook removed them from their platforms until Cora fought to get them back on.
Finally, Kotex became the first major brand to depict period blood as actual blood in 2020.
Why did it take this long to even represent period blood as, well, period blood?
Why are we hiding our real bodies?
We live in a backward society where women are told we should procreate. Motherhood is highly revered. Hell, we have a whole commercialized holiday celebrating mothers.
But anything our bodies do to become biological mothers is unacceptable. We’re supposed to hide ourselves when breastfeeding, sugarcoat postpartum, and pretend like periods aren’t really even periods.
If our bodies only exist as objects to look at, how do you expect us to bear children? Society tells us to become mothers but doesn’t want to acknowledge what that requires of our bodies.
Maybe what society is celebrating isn’t womanhood or motherhood at all. Maybe it’s just celebrating a falsehood.
As a woman, I do not accept this falsehood. As a society, we shouldn’t either.
Alice Cutler is an actor, stand-up, and writer navigating the waters of infertility. She lives part-time in Los Angeles and part-time in Idyllwild.
So true. Thanks for this. I am working on a series of essays on how medicine has all but left us behind until very recently mostly due to their disgust.