Florence Pugh's nipples- Freedom...or just another opportunity to keep women down?
Why can't nipples just be...nipples? The human body doesn't need to be a source of shame.
Nothing offended me except for cauliflower and stupidity.
Abby Jimenez, The Friend Zone
I think the scariest thing for me are the instances when people have been upset that I’ve shown ‘too much’ of myself…. Keeping women down by commenting on their bodies has worked for a very long time. I think we’re in this swing now where a lot of people are saying, ‘I don’t give a shit.’
Florence Pugh
What do you see when you look at the picture above? Think about that for a moment. Do you react differently than you might if the person pictured were male? If so, do you understand why that might be the case?
I can only speak for myself, but I see a female human body. Even if Florence Pugh were to remove her dress, I wouldn’t see anything prurient or sexual. Yes, she’s attractive, but why does every display of an unclothed female body have to be considered sexual? Why does the female body have to be considered a danger to male morality and a collective inability of the penis-bearing half of the population to control their animalistic urges?
Does a shirtless man create the same response amongst women? Why does our society maintain such a pronounced double standard when it comes to women’s breasts? What is it about the female breast that’s so inherently sexual or titillating that it must be covered in order to protect the public order? And to prevent men, who have an unfortunate predilection for thinking with the wrong head, to lose control?
I’m constantly amazed at how much women’s bodies aren’t thought to be their own. Particularly if they’re thought to be “attractive,” women are constantly judged. As a man, it’s pretty easy, and we seldom have to think about how we look, what we wear, or much of anything else.
It’s like the old joke about how men and women plan to get laid. A woman will make sure the mood lighting’s just so, that she’s wearing the perfect low-cut dress, and that her perfume is just suggestive enough but not “slutty.”
A man will show up naked with a six-pack of beer.
Men- and women, to a large degree- work hard to put women into a well-defined box. They can be sexy but not show too much skin. Women are expected to be demure when displaying their “assets.” They should show just enough to be attractive to men, but not so much that their outfit says “fuck me.” A girl doesn’t want to be thought a slut, after all.
Why are unclothed women’s bodies such a moral minefield? Because somewhere along the way, our Puritan forebears decided that the human body was evil, sinful, and the source of lustful thoughts. In order to protect public morality, they determined, women must be covered in such a way that their physical attractive was camouflaged.
Over the intervening centuries, not much has changes. Sure, they rules have relaxed a wee bit, but what women can and can’t do and/or wear is still tightly regulated by social mores.
And woe betide the woman who dares to show her nipples in public….
HARLOT! JEZEBEL! FLOOZY! HUSSY! SLUT! STRUMPET! WHORE! TRAMP! PACKERS FAN!
(OK…maybe not the last one….)
Florence Pugh decided that she’d had enough of playing that game and listening to the widespread comments made about women’s bodies. Realizing that nothing changes if nothing changes, she decided it was time for things to change.
It was time to claim some freedom for herself.
Florence Pugh has had enough with people commenting on women’s bodies ― including her own.
The “Oppenheimer” actor opened up to Elle about the backlash she endured when she wore a sheer, Valentino dress last year, and how the criticism affected her.
“I think the scariest thing for me are the instances where people have been upset that I’ve shown ‘too much’ of myself,” Pugh said in the interview, which was conducted by her friend and fellow actor, Jodie Turner-Smith.
“When everything went down with the Valentino pink dress a year ago, my nipples were on display through a piece of fabric, and it really wound people up,” Pugh explained. “It’s the freedom that people are scared of; the fact I’m comfortable and happy.”
“Keeping women down by commenting on their bodies has worked for a very long time,” the “Midsommar” entertainer stated. “I think we’re in this swing now where lots of people are saying, ‘I don’t give a shit.’ Unfortunately, we’ve become so terrified of the human body that we can’t even look at my two little cute nipples behind fabric in a way that isn’t sexual.”
Ms. Pugh is, at least in my estimation, spot on. There’s nothing dirty or nasty about the human body. It has only the sexual value we choose to assign it. Yes, guys, it’s possible to be in the vicinity of an unclothed woman without having an erection- but even if you were to have one, that’s a normal human reaction. Nothing to be ashamed of, eh?
Americans are so phenomenally uptight about virtually anything sexual. The Puritans died out a couple of centuries ago, but the Puritan ethic remains strong. “Naughty bits” must be covered at all times. But what constitutes “naughty bits?” And what is it that makes them “naughty?”
My own thoughts on this is that we as a society have never stopped to consider the “why” behind this standard. It’s always been this way, and so we’ve allowed it to carry on. Yes, standards have changed and loosened over the years, but America is by no means “libertine.” Compared to many European countries, we’re still extremely uptight when it comes to how we regard our bodies.
If you think I’m overstating things, consider this question: If you were at a spa in, say, Iceland, how would you feel about removing all of your clothes in the presence of others so that you could shower prior to entering the spa?
“We need to keep reminding everybody that there is more than one reason for women’s bodies [to exist],” she added. “I speak the way I do about my body because I’m not trying to hide the cellulite on my thigh or the squidge in between my arm and my boob: I would much rather lay it all out.”
Pugh addressed the commentary surrounding her sheer dress immediately after she wore the gown to Valentino’s haute couture show in Rome last July.
“What’s been interesting to watch and witness is just how easy it is for men to totally destroy a woman’s body, publicly, proudly, for everyone to see,” she said, noting that many of the critics included their “job titles and work emails” on their social media accounts.
“It isn’t the first time and certainly won’t be the last time a woman will hear what’s wrong with her body by a crowd of strangers, what’s worrying is just how vulgar some of you men can be,” she said.
Pugh was unfettered by any of the backlash, as she has continued to rock see-through looks in the months following the social media storm.
Women’s bodies don’t exist merely for the sexual pleasure of men, nor to repopulate the planet. Not that there’s anything wrong with either of those pursuits, of course, but those are choices, not obligations. No women should be acculturated to believe that either path is a cultural requirement. More than anything, women should be allowed to decide what they do with their bodies. Why that should be such a radical concept to so many defies rational understanding, but too many Social Conservatives continue to believe they have the right to exercise veto power over a woman’s choice.
That’s as insulting as it is demeaning and degrading.
As a culture, we aren’t very comfortable in our own skin, in the sense that being naked feels very unnatural to most of us. There’s a certain vulnerability involved in removing one’s clothes, like a knight removing their armor. We feel exposed and unprotected, as if we’re unable to fend off an attack.
We seldom think about that because we’re seldom in that position, but when we are it can be intensely uncomfortable.
Damn that Puritan ethic, eh?
Many Americans are intensely uncomfortable with their bodies. I certainly fall into that category, but I think I’m in a place where I could learn how to become more comfortable. The truth is that Americans don’t learn how to love or even appreciate their bodies. We’re taught that our bodies are something to cover, to hide from the world, and we learn early on that our bodies are a source of shame and vulnerability.
And that shame and vulnerability may well be what drives us to comment on women’s bodies. Could it be that shaming women for their bodies is a not-so-subtle way for us to feel better about our own meat sacks? If I can tear someone down and bring them down to my level, is that not an effective way for me to lessen the perceived distance between myself and a model with a perfect body?
I admire Florence Pugh for her IDGAF attitude toward what people have to say about her body. Her sheer, see-through outfits are her way of telling the world that what they see is what they get. Perhaps if more of us could find it within ourselves to display such a degree of bravery and openness, there would be fewer people feeling the need to shame women (and men).
After all, we’re all just skin-covered meat sacks. With any luck, we’ll live long enough to see that skin sag and wrinkle, and then perhaps we’ll finally come to understand that the important stuff was never on the exterior.
If Florence Pugh (or anyone else) chooses to head out into the world displaying their nipples, so be it. She’s a human being like anyone else, and no one should see that as anything unusual, prurient, or sexual. If she thinks her nipples are cute, who am I to argue? They’re only nipples, after all.
(All of my posts are now public. Any reader financial support will be considered pledges- support that’s greatly appreciated but not required to get to all of my work. I’ll leave it to my readers to determine if my work is worthy of their monetary support and at what level. To those who do offer their support, thank you. It means more than you know.)
