It’s the day of the Boobquake.
It’s amazing how much press this event is getting. I was going to say that if we do get a flurry of earthquakes today, the women are going to be insufferable…but even if it’s an ordinary day geologically, they’ll have managed to create a small mediaquake.
Well done girls – just a tremor near Taiwan so far!
Oh the tremor in Taiwan was before the scheduled time. It doesn’t count!
It’s a chilly day for Boobquake here today, but I am proudly sporting a brand new tanktop. Bought it yesterday, made sure it goes as low as it can get!
I always thought the world would end on a Monday. It seems appropriate. And today, I get suck working in a windowless office, with not another soul any where near by. The women will end the world with their cleavage, and we’ll all die, and I won’t get to enjoy any of it. I hate Mondays.
Family Friendly Blasphemy
So am I a misogynist if I like the Boobquake or if I dislike the Boobquake? I have seen conflicting opinions.
It’s probably safest if you just sit back and watch.
That just makes it worse! Or better.
That actually got mentions in the international press. Here’s the online site of “Der Spiegel”, Germany’s prime news magazine:
http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/gesellschaft/0,1518,691129,00.html
I picked up a newspaper today and it had a 1/3-page ad listing eight reasons Jesus will return soon, and Reason #4 was… more earthquakes! It brought a smile to my face knowing that today is Boobquake Day. Bring on the Boobocalypse!
@David Marjanović: I shall take your advice, though I must admit I’m more of a Buttquake sort.
Thanks for the reminder. I just changed out of my t-shirt and into something more… seismic. Enjoy it while it lasts, gentlemen!
Gotta go change my shirt. LandsEnd polos will not bring the tectonics…
Do man-boobs count?
Good question, Naked Bunny. I myself have conflicting opinions. The issue is that it’s all well and good to be directly in the face of the “women’s bodies are shameful” idea by showing off, but then women showing off their bodies is so entwined with control of women and their existence just to look pretty that it’s really difficult to stomach the idea of “looking like a stripper…for empowerment!”(?) I’m always quite skeptical of any movement that purports to be about something important yet winds up using women’s bodies for the punch line. Things like PETA ads are obviously atrocious; the breast cancer ‘save the boobs’ campaign is almost as bad but more difficult to get across to people why it’s wrong. This one to me falls way on the other side, because it is specifically targeted against the cleric’s words with a specific action that directly contradicts them, and is being advertised as just wearing something you already have (not getting something specially revealing for the occasion,) so I wouldn’t fight against it. However, it still has a whiff of the “show your tits” crap about it, which is what makes me not an enthusiastic supporter of it either.
If there is a significant change in geological activity today, it’s not the possessors of boobs who will be insufferable, it’ll be midget minded clerics.
oh, wait… they already are insufferable. Never mind.
Is boobquake an example of good framing?
Boobquake! Let us feel the unleashed breasts!
Er, wait, that didn’t come out right. Feel the POWER. The POWER of unleashed breasts.
Some say the world will end in boobquake,
Some say in booty shaking.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor boobies.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction big booty
Is also great
And would suffice.
– With apologies to Robert Frost
Of course, the sample size is 1–nobody runs a scientific study off of a single trial. But the religious people will never understand that, so if there is an Earthquake, then boobs help us all!
Only if you have a good underwire.
Has anyone considered the effects of the after shimmy … I mean shock?
T
Arrrgghhh – I didn’t know about Boobquake day. I’m WAY too modestly dressed for that today. Maybe I can make up for it if I forego wearing a sportsbra before going riding today?
No, forget what I said just there.
What a wonderful idea!
I think we should make this a recurring event!
Like .. every Monday!
That was perfect, google@ #17!!
There’s a Frost poem for every occasion.
I have made my contribution, and I think we should not only do this every year, but in fact we should test the cleric’s idiot hypothesis twice a year. We’ll do Boobquake every spring, and in the autumn, I propose Assquake, because there are some really epic backsides out there and they should have the chance to strut their stuff for science.
(Yes, I’m aware that Boobquake is all-inclusive and that we’re welcome to show off our booties instead of cleavage, but let’s face it: all eyes are on the racks today.)
The landing page at Yahoo News had a story up about the largest earthquakes ever. When I first saw it, I thought they were reporting on a new largest earthquake ever. Whew!
Boobquake! at minigiggles
There was an earthquake in the South Sandwich Islands region at 6:46:32 AM local time.
Should we bring out the torches and pitchforks? Because correlation does equal causation…
@Carlie: Thanks for your serious response to my admittedly tongue-in-cheek question. I agree with your assessment that the Boobquake is probably an appropriate response to a specific claim, unlike the PETA ads you mentioned.
However, I know many of us Pharyngula regulars react badly when we’re told that we’re “hurting the cause” by being forceful in our opinions, so I wouldn’t want to turn around and tell others that stunts the Boobquake or the PETA ads are bad because it “hurts the cause” of equality. While you’re right that bodily displays are often associated with repression, so is conforming to social pressure. It’s a tricky balance, but there’s nothing wrong with encouraging people to think about the motivations and consequences of their actions.
Doing my duty for Boobquake but had a heck of a time finding something that would give me decent cleavage. Settled for a low cut blouse but pinned it shut because I haz a modest. Pictures later…maybe.
The CTV Canada account and interview this morning. If you get the same McDonalds ad I got, it is very appropriate
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100426/boobquake_100426/20100426?hub=CanadaAMV2
Sorry, I should point out that the South Sandwich Islands quake happened about 6 hours ago. So, unlike the Taiwanese one, this counts.
Carlie and Naked Bunny:
I’d actually had a mind to wear plastic boobs for part of the day and get some other guys to do the same, in honor of the event. But after reading your comments, I am having a re-think. Do you either of you feel that men wearing boobs would parody the misogyny, or reinforce it?
Whether B or C or D-cup
It’s a tempest in a teacup–
It was just a silly comment; now it’s gotten out of hand
But in truth, the intertubies
Are composed of naught but boobies
(Metaphorical and literal), we all must understand.
Just a thought: why should it be assumed that women express their sexuality for men’s benefit? Surely that just falls back on the stereotype that women are sexually passive, and so can’t possibly be doing it for themselves?
I don’t do this to get men to gawk at my tits or to show them off. I work in a office full of guys and I didn’t catch any of them even glancing at the twins. I do it to mock the iranian loons.
And even if I wanted to show them off, doesn’t that make me powerful? Isn’t it my right? I do it because I can. It’s legal here for me to make myself pretty. I can do what I want to do. I can dress up to my neck AND I can just wear a tanktop without a bra. Whatever I want to! That’s the best message here. I have rights to my body. It doesn’t mean I’m being a toy for boys. Maybe I’m doing it for ME? What if I like looking at myself in the mirro-…Wait, where am I driving here?
Too bad it’s illegal here to go topless! Ah, to be in Ontario.
Whatever our anticipation and joy at the thought of a boobquake, I really think that the whole “misogeny” nonsense is just that. Women flaunt their breasts, they don’t, whatever. That’s what freedom allows.
It’s not what Islam allows. That’s the problem, and the absurd “causal connections” supposed to back up its harsh restrictions are what are being ridiculed.
Just don’t drool too much in front of the women, enjoy it, and laugh at Islam and its violations of human life and spirit.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
And guys, I would add to Glen D’s comment above….leave the Mardi Gras beads at home today.
Here is my article on the topic:
Atheists try to create a boobquake.
-Staks
Of course the wires scrupulously fail to mention the nature of the blog, but at least there’s a link to it.
Quake on!
Boobquake (complete with soundbite from Jen) even made the tag-end of the CBC morning news. However, they neglected to make clear the important point: the “science experiment” aspect is intended as a joke; it’s really about lampooning the attitude of this cleric, and by implication, repressed religious attitudes towards sexuality.
In local news: my wife considered going to work naked today. Since she’s a telecommuter who works from a home office, this would be unlikely to cause much of a stir. However, the local support staff (three cats) are going starkers in solidarity.
There’s a huge search-space here to consider for future experiments. Does the earthquake-causing god really only care about human promiscuity and female immodesty? What about all the other sexy animals and promiscuous plants? What about the effect that suggestive vegetables might have?
Sheesh, I live every day like it’s Boobquake day. This is mostly because I cannot stand to have anything near my neck, and the further away, the better, as long as it’s legal..and covers up a bra.
One question: Was there an earthquake on the day this took place?
re 22:
Actually isn’t there already one every wednesday?
@MrFire: Your heart is in the right place. You’ll be explaining yourself a lot, of course. I do think you should consider the possibility you’ll be making people around you uncomfortable, but you know the people you have to deal with, I don’t. The problem with accusations of misogyny, as I suggested in my first comment, is that it’s terribly subjective, and what one person sees as empowering, another sees as hateful. Use your head and think about the people you’re going to have to interact with, then decide from there.
@Michelle R: Sedighi is full of crap for claiming that skimpy clothes are causing earthquakes, but plenty of people are still buying his basic thesis that seeing skin is inherently sexual. I know I can’t ignore my cultural surroundings, but as someone who is in favor of a clothing-optional society, I sometimes want to tell all sides of these sorts of debates that they’re operating from a flawed premise.
@Naked Bunny: It’s mostly because of how we’re forbidden from showing it all off in public. It gives a feeling of a forbidden fruit. If we would’ve been allowed to walk around naked since generations, I don’t think we would see a girl in a short skirt and think “Aw that’s HOT!”. Because it would be no big deal.
I’m in favor of clothing-optional society but I got a feeling we’ll have years of creepy occurances if we allow it. You know, till people settle in in the normality of the happening.
(My only worry is the sanitation problem. I don’t want people with yeast infections or badly wiped butts to sit on the same bench as me. We’d have to make sure people still carry some cloth to sit on, like they do in nudie camps already.)
Me: Hey (coworker’s name)! I see you decided to participate in boobquake. That’s awesome!
coworker: What’s that?
Me: That protest Jen something organized after she heard what a cleric in Iran said.
coworker: Huh?
Me (starting to feel uncomfortable): You know…where women wear low cut shirts…nevermind…
coworker: No, tell me about this.
Me: women are wearing revealing clothing today because a cleric in Iran said that immodest women cause earthquakes.
coworker (blushing): This shirt isn’t revealing!!
Me: No…totally…did you need something?
coworker stomps off
[end scene]
@tutone21: …Ow dude. OW.
God is watching!
http://somethingpositive.net/sp04262010.shtml
I used Boobquake as a teaching opportunity with my kids – we talked about what some cultures consider “modest” and “immodest” – more than just dress, “immodesty” is an attitude, a way of saying “hey, I’m a person too!” It helps that my daughter is on a Mulan kick, too. We also talked about men’s responsibility too: that men were responsible for self-control – you may not be able to control your emotional reaction to a sexy girl, but you can – and must – control your actions.
David was all, like, “Mo-om!” and embarrassed. Tori said that speaking her mind and being a full human being was the way she was every day. She did wear her corset in honor of Boobquake, but I think she would have worn it anyway, she’s been complaining about her back aching, and she uses the corset for support.
I’ve got great kids.
re 44:
In a society of nudity, a woman wearing a short skirt just might be totally hot, but for exactly the opposite reason it is today. It would be “hot” for concealing rather than for revealing. The mind is a strange place.
I’ll have to echo what a acquaintance of mine suggested.
Boobquake must go on for an extended period of time. Right now we are only going to have one point of data. That is hardly enough on which to base a conclusion. BoobQuake should go on for years and years. This way with thousands of data points, we can more accurately draw a conclusion.
Also, the more women who participate the better. No matter the build, socio-economic status, level of education, etc. (of course please abide by all laws governing your particular state).
I did my contribution too.
And i kept my promiss and made a picture of my cleavage for my blog.
All in the name of science. :)
Hey Folks,
Since this is supposed to be a scientific experiment, could someone please explain to me what the unit of observation is?
T
Ugh. I did not have time this morning to take a pic, will not be able to get home for lunch, have a dinner date after work…
so if I get a pic up this eve it’ll be an aftershock.
I’ll just pull my jacket off and reveal my sexy shoulders.
Aaaahhh…. I feel the whole office starting to shake right now.
Oh yeah and this:
QFT!
Oh yeah, but I suppose that the answer lies in who’s opinion matters.
It seems women are just objects floating around in the world of men, but the world as we all know it, is, of course, the world of men.
Women don’t have one, they operate inside mens’ realities and everything revolves around men in mens’ realities…. and hetero men at that.
whose. whose…. yeah.
I can see that this sends out a confusing message. It’s empowering to dress as I like but irritating when it attracts attention I don’t want or means everything else about me becomes irrelevant.
I am taking part in Boobquake because it is important to dispel this stupid idea that men can dictate what women wear and use superstition to enforce this.
We may achieve just a small victory for common sense and reason today. Personally, I think that’s a price worth paying for being ogled.
Problem is this is not a good test of what the cleric said: every day, there are several billion women who dress imodestly (according to the cleric’s definition), so a few 100,000 dressing more imodestly (scandalously?) for one day is not going impact the boobquake signal.
I suggest another test:
women (in those countries affected by the phenomena) are known to dress more imodestly when the outside temperature rises and the sun shines.
As the population of potentially imodest women is much larger in the northern hemisphere than it is in the southern hemisphere, we should witness more earthquakes during the Northern summer months.
From the world data center, we can get the list of all significant earthquakes in a given period:
taking all earthquakes with a magnitude superior to 7 during the last ten years, we get :
a total of 99 earthquakes
52 during the months from October to March
47 during the months from April to September
As we can see, there is no significant difference between periods when women dress more imodestly and periods when they cover more their bodies.
Conclusion : evidence shows that the cleric was wrong (surprise!).
Or maybe the ten million Australian women dress so scandalously during the soutern summer months that they balance exactly their few billion northern counterparts?
@Jessie
I think an important thing to remember is that boobquake or no, you’re going to get “ogled” anyway. Women are beautiful, are are ogle-worthy regardless of revealing-ness. I “ogle” the sunrise outside my apartment window in the morning, and “ogle” paintings in museums. My ears are “ogling” the new album by the New Pornographers right now.
The whole underlying concept of the imam’s statement is that men cannot possibly control their all-consuming lust (projection much? Paging Dr. Freud…). Of course the rest of the world knows how ridiculous that idea is. The most sexually repressive societies in history are the ones with the history of greatest deviance and sexual violence. The more we fetishize the sexual act, the more obsessed we become, and the less sexually healthy society is as a whole.
Way to go Jen, 200,000 hits!
The fourth Monday in April should now be forever known as “National Booby Day”.
And I’ll do my bit for science by lusting after all the beautiful women who will…
“…lead young (and many not so young) men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society…”
Lead away ladies.
I will be out in the field checking data. I will be looking… errr feeling for any signs of shaking… THE GROUND I mean! signs of the GROUND shaking.
Meh. It’s hard for me to harbour any great enthusiasm for this whole thing. People always forget about the one group who are invariably excluded: namely, unattractive people. :-(
What about porn? Does a pornographic photo or film affect seismic activity when it’s produced, or when it’s viewed? Because if it’s the latter, then the signal-to-noise ratio is going to drown out any Boobquake effects.
Good point, Brownian. I’ll do my part to contribute by investigating some of those sites today. If you’re right, that should add to the indecency. That way, we might yet get some decent readings.
I think this needs to go on for slightly more than one day to get the full statistical significance, and remove any sampling error bias. How about 1000 days, or 10000!
Op-ed on Salon.com, Why I won’t be joining the “Boobquake” has this to say:
But how exactly is it the WOMEN’s fault if baring boobs supposedly = lasciviousness and oversexualization? “The world” doesn’t respect freedom of expression, therefore women should be ashamed of expressing themselves? If men- er, straight me- er, Fans Of Boobs, want to take this event as nothing but cheap thrills, that’s their problem. They’re just boobs, not flashing neon signs that say SLUT.
And if “all parties must be on board” before women can demonstrate anything, well, it’ll be a long long wait.
The science, maybe not so much, but the importance of this stunt is to bring attention to the latest claim that women’s bodies are the equivalent of fissionable material and have to be locked up and regulated as such. Because it’s not the poor men’s fault if they grope and rape where they aren’t wanted.
Also, somethingpositive has it SOOO right.
Today is also Charles Richter’s birthday.
Yes, THAT Richter.
Well, Salon, I would point out that exposing chubby middle-aged-lady boobs is pretty much not encouraged by the GGW culture, unless you’re actually trying to be featured in People of Walmart.
@Becca – my kids and I have also had lots of discussions about the Boobquake idea, and my 14 year old son thinks its unbelievably funny. He’s busy setting up a diorama of his toy soldiers versus a Barbie in a red-white-&-blue bikini (which may have to be painted on, since the Barbie will have to come from a thrift store). We’ve also discussed how people should all be able to dress comfortably, how it’s considerate not to dress in deliberately sexually provocative ways in the wrong settings (work, school, etc.) and how everyone is responsible for controlling their own sexual urges, no matter what.
Would it count for Boobquake to wear forehead titaes? http://www.kontraband.com/videos/21891/Forehead-Titaes/ (Possibly NSFW – sorry, can’t get the html tags to work.)
Knowing that according to the cleric the proximate cause of earthquakes is male lust, I suppose the cleric would suggest that males viewing porn influences seismic activity.
But then we’d have seen a dramatic surge in seismic activity during the 20th century, which we haven’t.
Or maybe Allah distinguishes male lust triggered by a live imodestly dressed woman from that produced by an image? Let’s not forget that he works in mysterious ways…
Yes. I think I started saying something about this in the other thread.
I agree completely. The very people who will say that they support some one’s rights to show their body even if it “triggers lust” will then some times turn around and show contempt for some one’s decision to show their body because it “doesn’t trigger lust” and that truly bothers me.
I do wish that the day had been turned more into a celebration of the human body. After all what is attractive and what isn’t really is a subjective thing.
Thank you PZ for leading me to Jenn’s site (been reading in several months now). Blogger wife now joined in too and posted and article on this: http://www.themomslant.com/
In addition to the Boobquake there’s another group on Facebook who have organized a Brainquake ( http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=100832899962032&ref=mf ) aimed at highlighting women’s achievements. The organizers have especially found a lot of information on Iranian women intellectuals, and the page is a good read!
A lot of us are participating in both. I personally plan to wear a low-cut shirt while debugging code today.
The Fiancé© and I have made a modest contribution to Boobquake.
(You can also see it here on Youtube, but it won’t stay up long I’m sure.)
SteveM says, “In a society of nudity, a woman wearing a short skirt just might be totally hot, but for exactly the opposite reason it is today.”
Well, it doesn’t quite work that way. When I was a Peace Corps volunteer in Africa, women walking around bare breasted was quite common. And yes, most of the time, it passed without notice. However, when a good looking woman walked by with her breasts exposed, it attracted significant and appreciative notice even from the African men who had grown up in the culture. Granted, it didn’t attract quite as much notice as would a nice pair of legs–which were more usually kept covered.
Men are attracted to the female form. I think it is hardwired. Some of us learn to control our response sufficiently to remain cognizant in the presence of said form. Some of us even remain cognizant that every female form comes complete with a female person attached, and that that person is deserving of respect, regardless of how it is clad. Then there are the assholes. Personally, I think the proper response is simply to taser the assholes.
The forecast for today was rain, and it rained in the morning, but the day has been absolutely gorgeous! Must be boobquake overcoming the bad weather!
I see a problem. What if the bad guys resort to music?
As every literate person knows, music has charms to soothe the savage breast. (I know, some of you thought it was “beast.” You’re wrong.)
We’ll have to ask the ladies to really give this all they’ve got (literally), because their boobs may be neutralized by music.
As a guy, I’d need to gain at least 15 more pounds to help, and don’t quite have man-boobs yet.
But I’m with you in spirit. I’ll give thumbs up to every display of cleavage I see. Of course, I tend to do that anyway. I know, I’ll get my wife to join in. She’s usually a bit shy, but she has a couple of low-cut tops. Count us in!
The best bit of that ABC report: And McCreight has even received e-mails from Iranian women cheering her on.
It surprises me how many atheists who easily reject most of the stupid, asinine, useless, irrelevant, and outdated dictates of Abrahamic religions still would look a nudists and naturists as some kind of weirdos. Clothing is functional; when its cold, or wet, or dirty or scratchy, it serves a useful purpose. But covering oneself when these situations do not exist is conforming to a stupid old testament edict. If one thinks that their body is too old and wrinkly or fat, and they want to spare others the view, I say fuck ’em. We don’t force people with plain or ugly faces to cover them, at least in the west.
As a first year pre-med brother of a former room-mate of mine said, after I asked him why medicine(more specifically:”why did you want a job that made you have to look an old ladies vaginias”), he replied, “The human body is really beautiful, in all is shapes, sizes and forms.” Thanks to the internet, I now realize, fully, what he meant.
One thing that especially annoys me about christian missionaries, is how they have polluted perfectly wonderful cultures that didn’t have hangups about nude bodies, such as Polynesia, Bali and Southeast Asia, Africa, and South America. Now any nature shows about indigenous peoples show them almost always wearing tee-shirts, shorts and baseball caps with stupid logos on them. Those old Nat. Geo. magazines that I used to “use” as a kid, stacked in my grandmother basement, may be the only record of an innocence lost.
Walton (@61):
“Unattractive”… you keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means. ;^)
Seriously, based on the various scraps of information you’ve given us about height, weight, etc., it doesn’t seem like you’re really outside any cultural norms in terms of body shape; unless your face is hideously deformed, it’s hard to imagine what about you could be as unambiguously unattractive as you sometimes declare yourself to be. Even if you think your face is goofy-looking, I have two words for you: Humphrey Bogart ‘Nuff said.
Of course, you are male, and there does seem to be a strain of thought suggesting that maleness is inherently unpretty: One of my favorite current reasons to grind my teeth is a TV commercial currently running in the U.S. for a service that matches prospective students to online degree programs. The advertising hook is that you can go to college in your pajamas, and the spokesperson is a young woman (expertly cast to be mildly sexy in a way that’s more cute than hot) wearing flannel boxer shorts and a little tank top (with just a tiny bit of bare flesh showing at the waistline, enough to be a tiny bit titillating, but not at all threatening or scandalous… howevermuch it pisses me off, this ad campaign is exceptionally well crafted). She goes through her little spiel, delivered with a perfect mix of authority and girlish charm, about how valuable a college degree is, even to people who can’t attend a traditional campus, and then she ends with [paraphrasing from memory, but the gist is correct] “so ladies, put on your cutest little PJs and guys… <CuteFrown>cover up a bit</CuteFrown>… and call….”
It’s a tiny, tiny thing, of course, compared to the unwanted sexualization women must contend with, but this idea that the average guy is something nobody need to see is annoying to me in the same way as the endemic TV trope that husbands and fathers are generally clueless doofuses (doofi? doofæ?).
As for the notion that Boobquake ignores the unattractive, why do you think so? I’m pretty sure tight-assed prudish clerics are just as incensed by the “immodesty” of… shall we say, other-than-traditionally-beautiful women as by anyone else’s, and AFAIK, Jen has not established any sort of hotness test for participation. I say hairy, lumpy, smelly men and (allegedly) unattractive women should let their freak flags fly right along with our boobquaking sisters! Hell, if I try hard enough, I might even be able to scare up some cleavage of my own! (hmmm… TMI?)
People should go to Givesgoodemail (#72) to view and up-rate his Fiancee’s video. Its GREAT! Maybe the youtube a-holes will leave it alone.
I’m participating to support science, skepticism, silliness and sassiness. Photo proof on my blog.
Steve Jobs says:
“Want Porn? Buy an Android Phone.”
Please send Boobquake photos via your I-Phone, and maybe Apple’s chief will be rocked out of his prudish captain’s chair. (Playboy is supported and endorsed by the I-Phone, btw.)
As for myself, I’m off to the gym to do a few benchpresses to pump up my own insignificant male boobs, in support of Jen McCreight’s work of genius. IMHO the lovely Jen just put herself squarely in-line for Atheist of the Year, male or female.
Christ Quasimodo, you’ve already got the endless thread: just how many bell towers do you need to lament your feelings of unattractiveness from?
Heh-heh! That was pretty funny.
Oh there I am not picking up on tone again. I didn’t realize Walton was talking about himself. Is he?
Seriously Walton, do you have bdd or something?
May I just say that, as an Embryologist, I love to look at cleavage!
Ol’ Greg (@83):
Well, it’s possible that Brownian and I are the ones not picking up on tone… but our little Extra Special Dumpling of Awesome does have a long history of talking about his own allegedly earthshattering, sex-preventing hideousness (about which I, for one, am profoundly skeptical).
But I don’t mean to be thread-jacking; the proper place for tortured self-revelation (and good-natured mocking of same) is, as Brownian suggested, The Endless Thread™.
Yes, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt here. I really do think he seems to be saying that in general people will demand that women disrobe, so long as they are women who are found sexy.
All others should hide.
Which just reinforces the idea that women are only objects of sexual stimulation with no other value, which is the underlying problem with the “cover up, you damn sluts” as a position.
It’s the inverted twin to that, and it is a good point to bring up I think.
I got my cock out, just in case. Actually, that’s pretty normal to be honest. My reasoning is that if boobs cause earthquakes, cocks prevent them
Three things:
1) The misogyny/sexism angle: I think that confusing a woman/women dressing how she damned well pleases with sexual objectification can be an error. Not always but sometimes. Therefore when a woman is displaying a large amount of herself it is an expression of nothing more than her wish to do so. Except when it isn’t. Since I have no idea when it is or when it isn’t, I’m not fucking looking until she gives me written permission.
2) If boobs cause earthquakes and this boobquake event proves it, I for one welcome our female overlords…erm…overladies. The power to cause earthquakes with your tits? Yeah, that’s not going to be used to reverse eons of male dominance. I’m not saying this would be a bad thing by the way.
3) I’m in enough trouble for taking the piss this much already. There is no third thing!
Louis
Related posts:
http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/04/do-boobs-cause-earthquakes/
http://skepchick.org/blog/2010/04/why-boobs-matter-in-skepticism/
I almost always wear a low cut shirt anyway, because that’s what’s most comfortable. T-shirts are really uncomfortable if you have breasts, they feel like they’re choking me and the fabric under the boobs never hangs right.
It is really incredible how differently I’m treated when I show skin verses when I have a sweatshirt on or something. Especially when I don’t bother to wash my hair or put on makeup, unattractively dressed Haley doesn’t get doors held for her, store clerks mostly ignore me, and least importantly no one hits on me.
As such, if I feel like being left alone, I have to wear uncomfortable modest clothing and neglect to wash my hair for a few days. I realize this isn’t a huge lack of privilege, as I am conventionally attractive, thin, and white, but it still annoys me when I get unwanted attention for simply wearing comfy clothes.
Does it amuse anyone else that the first people to mention misogyny are always the ones trying so desperately to pretend it absolutely never exists at all?
I’m participating in boobquake. Is it sexual objectification? Yeah, probably. I don’t really care. It’s a funny in a juvenile way to flip the bird at a misogynistic religidouche and I’ve got the goods to make it worthwhile.
is the facebook page taking pics?
EXACTLY. That’s why something like this is difficult – it does make sense given what it’s protesting and it is fun and etc, but then there’s the other part where it can end up as an excuse to oogle and that’s creepy and so forth. And not for nothing, but the “ugly people need not apply” idea isn’t just self-pity; look at the People of WalMart site. Most of it is just “ha ha there’s someone exposing more skin than I think they should because they’re ugly”. You only get the approval to dress as you like if it pleases other people, which is all manner of fucked up. But then again, I feel kind of bad laying all of that onto the boobquake idea, but it shouldn’t be entirely ignored either, and aaarrgghh.
But anyway, I hope MrFire did don the fake boobs, because that’s really funny.
Seismology aside, I wonder if this might not be an unplanned side-effect of Boobquake? ;^)
Ol’ Greg (@86):
I get that that’s an issue in our culture, and perhaps that’s what he was getting at… but why level that criticism at the Boobquake protest in particular? It’s not a Playboy casting, after all; AFAIK, neither the cleric’s complaint about “immodesty” nor the Boobquake participants’ effort to strike back at it is conditioned on the traditional, heteronormative sexiness of the “immodest” women in question. I haven’t been to Jen’s (is it Jen or Jenn? folks here have been using it both ways) site, but I can’t imagine anything about the way she’s presented this… hmm, does it rise to the level of an initiative?… that even implicitly excludes people on the basis of attractiveness. So I wonder why W brought it up in this context.
FWIW, I promise to admire all boobquakers equally, without regard to any arbitrary standard of hotness. I would be disingenuous to claim that I find everyone equally sexy — we all have our turn-ons and turn-offs — but I have a hard time recalling anyone’s “immodest display” that I’ve found insufferably unviewable… and in any case, this is for the cause! ;^)
I suck at resisting skepti-memes: boobquake
Resistance is futile. On the bright side, at least your picture is artsy, with a nice pose that draws the eye to the obscured face, like a mystery to be solved.
Jade that’s both immodest and tasteful. Nicely done. And all that jazz!
I hope it gets a mention in New Scientist! Although I doubt it’ll get past peer review quick enough…
It is a neat pic Jadehawk. I’m going to try and get one up this evening.
Another online comic joins in, (though not in the narrative).
Wapsi Square
Ok… done.
Ah, an opportunity to make use of that lonely twitter account again !! It’s lain bare since #creozorg….
Looks like Jen is having a busy day, well done !!
I forgot completely and wore the most modest shirt I own. Rats.
I forgot about it but I did wear a tank top. Ol’Greg and Jadehawk, very nice pictures!
One might suggest that we start designing blinkers, blinders, or other sight-limiting headgear to prevent men from seeing anything but their own feet and forwarding them to the Muslim cleric for consideration. If men sinfully lust after women, then the men should be the ones to correct their habits.
I second that emotion!
And just where was woot when we needed him or her?
Here’s me, trying to fill in for woot.
MikeM
I don’t want to discourage anyone from showing off their tits, but as far as bad excuses go, this has got the be the worst excuse for dressing lightly.
The Iranian priest was not referring to boobs in his speech, but rather to women that wear their scarfs way up on the top of the head, showing off their hair, and short coats that reveal the pants a bit over the knees. These coats often have short sleeves, because the degenerated women that wear them just love to flash their sexy forearms.
But hey, don’t let that stop you from pretending that his statement has any implication on your life.
mirshafie:
Nope, the Iranian imam was quoted as saying:
So he was referring to immodest dress which tempts young men, which clearly is culturally determined — not to specific dressing styles. Revealing one’s hair etc. is not particularly immodest in our societies.
If you must attempt to be pedantic, it’s probably best to be accurate, too. :)
I did take part but there are no pictures as my photographer was unable to take any which weren’t horribly blurred. He says he needs more practice. ;)
Ol’Greg:
Very nicely done. You and Jadehawk both have a creative and artistic approach to being “immodest.” I’m impressed. :-)
Surely the tremor in Taiwan was just a shudder of anticipation.
People always forget about the one group who are invariably excluded: namely, unattractive people.
Jesus fucking Christ, Walton–how many times do I have to tell you that looks don’t have to be a barrier?
Listen, I’m not an attractive woman, I’m not feminine and sweet or ego stroking to make up for it, but IRL I have tons of men who adore me, even some who have assured me repeatedly that, if anything ever happens to my husband, they want first shot at dating me. I will be the woman six deep in men at most parties, as prettier girls are muttering, “What’s so great about her?” while I’m having to tell the guys, “Make that drink a Sprite, would ya, so I don’t die of alcohol poisoning?” Every party I’ve attended for the last 8 years has gone that way.
Now if I’m not super pretty yet can still attract the opposite sex, that says the mating game isn’t about looks, except to the shallow (and who would want anyone like that?). It’s about who you are and how you relate to people. It’s about paying attention to people, pure and simple. I don’t mean fawning or stalking or anything creepy like that, but simply acknowledging them, even if all you do is smile and say “Hello, how are you?” because most of us love having someone not only acknowledge our existence, but also express interest in it.
So stop using your looks as an excuse to hide behind. Start smiling and making casual (not shifty or creepy) eye contact with women. Start conversations with them, even if it’s about the weather, or how late the train is. Or ask about the book she’s carrying. Yes, small talk is boring and inane, but you have to start with something, and build from there.
John Morales: Yeah, I can read too. I saw the translation of his speech and I read it in Farsi. And my point is that by immodest he was referring to showing hair and forearms. Revealing the upper part of the chest is out of the question — boobs, dream on.
I’m not attempting to be pedanting, I’m trying to remind you that the people in Iran live completely different lives than you do. I guess that you know that on an abstract level, but it’s hard to really grasp how it affects them, and this boobquake thing is really quite telling of that fact.
By the way, surely a just god would not punish immodesty if it was merely culturally determined. On the other hand, those who say god is just refer to scripture, and the god from the scriptures would probably not have a problem differentiating with people like that. It would be pretty funny after all.
mirshafie, I see what you are saying, but I think that anything that does get attention to the ridiculousness of what is and isn’t appropriate for women to wear being decided by seemingly whatever woman is making the decision about herself is helping some what.
Iranian women face a completely different culture, and they are a part of that culture themselves. Yet the idea that women can’t decide what they consider modest or immodest is a problem in the west also.
For instance, what I wore would not be considered that immodest by some. It would be considered beyond whorish by others.
I picked something I might wear to a party, but something I wouldn’t wear to work under any circumstances. I should be trusted to know when to wear what and to dress according to my own comfort and attraction to the clothing.
It’s for that reason that I participated. Yes, I know it isn’t having a direct impact on Iranian women. In fact, the show us your tits mentality some times drives women to prefer the “protective” modesty that is enforced upon them.
They’re right about that too.
Ol’Greg: Well, it is very true that the West needs to undramatize women’s chests, and this thing may have helped a tiny bit. If so, then it’s no small thing.
Do you mind if I change the subject a bit? You wrote that you wouldn’t wear the same clothes to work. Why?
Is it for the fear of what others would think of you, or do you think different situations require different aestethics?
I’m asking because I’ve encountered the latter view a lot lately, and I don’t get it. I don’t know how to attack it or argue against it, I’m just looking for someone that can explain it to me. Sorry if I’m presuming.
I work in a corporate office in Texas. So yes, there are dress codes. Actually they’re not that bad because I work in IT. We aren’t allowed to wear jeans or very casual clothing at all, so it’s a matter of conforming to the standard because they pay me to.
But in general I agree with the logic. Corporate environments are not free space, you aren’t in your home, and you are forced into an arrangement of close quarters with people who you do not know, do not share much in common with, and who may have a variety of different views.
You don’t talk about religion, sex, or politics and you adopt a style of dress based on business standards so that when you see it you think “place of work”
Also, you may be somewhat customer facing (in my case I may have to talk to or deal with people from the upper management of the business for instance). There is some need for professionalism in that case.
Also, to dress like that at work would be impractical. The bracelet would bother me while I’m coding, the skirt I would be constantly tugging down at my desk, eight- ten hours in those boots would be murder on my feet. So on and so forth.
Lastly, do I fear what they think about me as a person? No I don’t give a rats ass. Do I fear that they might fire me, or turn me down for promotions, or look over my work, or see me as less serious about my job?
Damn straight I do.
One thing I will say is that where I work corporate dress standards are pretty evenly enforced, with basically the most minimal things asked.
For instance I am not required to wear panty hose or a suit jacket, men do not have to wear belts or ties.
They just ask that people’s shirts cover the shoulders and that no torso flesh hangs out (on men either), and that no one wear jeans except on fridays, and that no one wear flip flops ever.
That being said these things are different in different environments, and if mine were more liberal I’d have less distinction between the two.
Thank you for elaborating, Ol’Greg!