The Male Gaze Does Not Allow For Boy Nipples UPDATE

The men in this Wrestlemania billboard, if you look closely, have no nipples. They were photoshopped out supposedly because of a law in Florida that prohibits the display of nipples.* Since men's nipples are not sexualized in the same way that women's are, the authors of the law were likely thinking of women's bodies as they penned this ban. It may illustrate that it is women's bodies that we think of when we think of bodies on display because of the adoption (by men and women alike in this culture) of a (heteronormative) male gaze.



Image and info found here via copyranter.

* UPDATE: The interesting follow-up to the story (and I just realized a commenter caught this too) is that it turns out the mayor was wrong: his city actually doesn't have a law against displaying nipples. It is unclear if he knew this at the time (i.e., was lying) or really thought there was. And apparently some posters in town DO have nipples.

What does this additional information add to an interpretation of this image?

Posted by Lisa Friday, March 28, 2008 at 11:51 PM Labels: , ,  

20 comments:

  RFB

March 29, 2008 at 8:37 AM

I had to wonder, was it an effort on the part of the billboard creators to make a statement?

Were they perhaps saying, "Let's expose this law for how sexist it is."?

They didn't have to think long as to whether the law applied to male nipples. I don't wear a t-shirt to the beach or the pool, after all.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 9:05 AM

Wow. Once again the US shows it's utter and bottomless stupidity. First of all wrestling is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen; and then this. Nice combo retards.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 9:09 AM

You are why nobody takes sociology seriously as a social science.

Your major conclusion (... we think that womens' bodies are what we think of when we think of bodies on display) doesn't bear out empirically because you're talking about a display of mens' bodies sans nipples. Maybe your point would be evidenced by a display of mens' bodies that did display nipples and was fined for it. But that's not the case.

Your minor conclusion (the heteronormative male gaze makes it so that we think that...) is based upon an assumption that because womens' nipples are uniquely sexualized, then any and all laws based upon nipples must refer only to women. But there are a whole host of reasons why policymakers would be interested in banning ALL nipples on display, not the least of which is an incentive to prohibit all sexualized advertising - including undressed male torsos. Or maybe it's a homophobic law interested in stopping advertisements oriented at the gay community (remember that we're talking about a heternormative male gaze here). Your assumption about the causal relationship between uniquely sexualizing womens' nipples on the one hand and laws about nipples on the other just doesn't pan out.

So there it is. You want your data to be one way, but it's the other way. And on top of that, your logical argument is just a string of non-sequiter assumptions that don't really hold together.

You're not only harming sociology, but you're making perfectly valid ideas like the danger of the male gaze into laughing stock by using them so poorly.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 9:46 AM

To the other Anon poster.

Thank you for showing you repugnance. By stating that the United States governs like all of Florida does is a fallacy.

Every state has their own sovereignty in some sense. If you said something like, "this is part of America's problem," then that might have been better. Instead, you just sound foolish.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 9:52 AM

Daniel,

I have to say, your point was articulated well. However, you're incorrect.

His argument that women's bodies is what we think of is evidenced by the legislation, as he implied. The billboard is a result of that legislation--a effect, not a cause.

As for the "heteronormative male gaze", is it that hard to believe that something can be normative and not absolute? I mean, seriously, if you're into sociology at all, you should be familiar with averages and deviations. Just because something is defined as "normal" does not mean that it is always the case.

Loosen up.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 10:21 AM

Daniel:

Thank you for the thoughtful post. I agree. While I suspect that there IS a "(heteronormative) male gaze", this incident does not illustrate it -- it actually serves as evidence against it.

-- Michael Chermside

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 10:53 AM

So, I have to wonder: If the law in Florida is against showing nipples on billboards, is it legal to show a topless woman with her nipples airbrushed out?

  Kelsey Atherton

March 29, 2008 at 11:01 AM

Daniel, Michael -

This is the exception that proves the rule. The law was designed with the male gaze in mind, with the understood purpose of prohibiting pictures of women's nipples. That a billboard of male wrestlers could be de-nippled wasn't a concept that occurred to the authors of the legislation, who in writing "nipples" in law had only those attached to breasts in mind. The assumption of uniquely sexualizing women's nipples does pan out, because the nipples the law thinks about are female, and here we have an example of this law applied in a circumstance which the laws authors never thought of, because male nipples don't register as nipples for the "heteronormative male gaze".
This billboard choosing to not show nipples to avoid a fine is almost the same as the hypothetical where a male-nipple-showing billboard did get fined - both of those are responses to the anti-nipple law. What would disprove the statement is a billboard with male nipples not getting fined, as the male gaze would ignore those nipples and not make a big deal of it.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 11:03 AM

You are why nobody takes sociology seriously as a social science.

your following post is the main reason most view sociology as fringe science at best.

  Kelsey Atherton

March 29, 2008 at 11:10 AM

anon -

it's social science. Much as I love it, no one takes it seriously anyway. Given that, and given that this is social science we're commenting on, your comment isn't really constructive, as we're taking social science seriously here, and you're not providing any value to the conversation besides calling someone out on unstated reasons and without a valid counterargument.
(oh, and to add to all this, here's the newspaper article the image comes from, saying that indeed no such law exists, and that the nipples were removed by the advertisers to tone down the sexuality - http://www.orlandosentinel.com/sports/custom/wrestling/orl-maxwell2808mar28,0,3325425.column)

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 11:26 AM

could it be that advertisers were worried bout lawsuits?
this is a politically correct society after all.
it doesn't take sociology student to see that law was , yes, aimed at female nipples.
to many sociology is the long way to explain "common sense"

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 11:31 AM

sorry, missed link, no law , strange that mayor thought there was,
though that does support the overboard PC society

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 11:55 AM

"Nobody takes sociology seriously" is hardly a credible statement from a culture in which evolution is still on trial more than a century later. A backwards culture will always reject the sciences - especially those that require the intellectual fortitude to weigh subtle complexities.

  the unbeatable kid

March 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM

wow. these comments are priceless. while the original post is concise, it really couldn't be more clear. i hope that there isn't any confusion after kelsey atherton took the time to spell things out but because "nobody takes sociology seriously" this "debate" will probably continue.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 1:57 PM

If a law would in fact forbid the display of male nipples, or any other, non-sexual thing for that matter, it would be unconstitutional.

The government can only forbid speech if it is "worthless" and the government has a valid reason for the prohibition (as in the case of plain pornography, which is not really an expression of ideas and the government has public morality as a reason)

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 2:49 PM

Ohhhhhh....

all this talk about nipples in general is making my lard-laden male breast nipples crinkle and enlarge in unadulterated delight.

  Anonymous

March 29, 2008 at 6:40 PM

Being from the city this billboard is located in, Orlando, I can tell you that this law came to be solely from an unrelated legal battle with a local strip club. What happened was a road needed to be widened, and the state needed to build on the land the strip club was located on. The owners however refused to sell, and an eminent domain battle ended up in court. As part of an annoying, yet admittedly clever attempt to drive the strip club out of business, the city banned the display of nipples within its jurisdiction.

Now, while it is certain that there are many around here who are pleased with that level of puritanical nonsense, this wasn't due to some silly reaction to the human body, but good 'ol Floridian political chicanery. We're just stuck with the bizarre side effects, like this.

  Anonymous

March 31, 2008 at 12:57 AM

As far as this representing how dumb the US is, you have to realize that Florida is regarded by the rest of the nation as a retarded cousin. 'Member the radio show "Love Line"? They used to have listeners call in with news items from Florida and the hosts (Adam and Dr. Drew) had to guess if they were real or not. The most ridiculous ones were always true.

  Anonymous

April 5, 2008 at 2:09 PM

Yet another tragic side effect of steroid abuse. Denipplization.

  Anonymous

April 7, 2008 at 7:45 AM

Maybe they airbrushed the nipples out to make the wrestlers seem more 'manly'. Wrestling is too full of testosterone as it is, surely there had to be a consequence! No more nipples!

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)