During the week there was a minor to-do about Sarah Palin and whether she had gotten breast implants. I cannot think of a political topic less interesting or relevant than Sarah Palin’s breasts, but the issue has received a great deal of press attention, and generated a heated denial from Palin herself.
In our ‘modern world’, is it right, fair, appropriate, sexually equal or exploitative, to discuss whether a female political figure has had breast surgery? Several thoughts.
Women are always going to be evaluated by their appearance. This is biological and anatomic reality. Testosterone receptors heavily populate the visual cortex and hypothalamus in primates. Male primates really do have a better sense of spatial judgment and their sexuality really is more visually based. There is no question men’s sexuality is more visually activated than most women’s.
Biology and sexuality are not the only determinants of social roles, however. Women at work should be evaluated like any worker- on performance, not appearance or genitalia. Part of a politician’s appeal is appearance. John Thune’s ‘matinee idol looks’ have been remarked upon many times. In that vein, it is entirely appropriate to remark on Palin’s general appearance or attractiveness.
Breasts have a complicated place in the evaluation of a politician. They are a very visible secondary sexual characteristic, and play a part in the visual appeal of all women. As such, they are like a beard shadow, which may be part of the overall appeal or non-appeal of a man (Thune vs. Nixon, for example). While they are part of visual assessment of attraction, their role in erotic attraction makes specific comments about breasts inappropriate in evaluating a politician, just as remarks about a man’s crotch bulge would be out of bounds.
Palin has complicated the situation by her pictures in a fitness magazine. These pictures were taken in a form fitting outfit, rather than a loose shirt and jogging pants. The pictures are not as revealing as a swimsuit, but certainly outline her body in a way that is unbecoming to a person who wants to be judged on competence rather than appearance. Many male politicians have been photographed jogging or otherwise exercising, but this is not quite the same. No male politician has deliberately allowed himself to be photographed in form revealing clothing when he was a politician. Many politicians have prior lives that may have involved the exposure of their bodies, as professional athletes (Bunning, Kemp), models and bodybuilders (Schwartzenegger and Ventura), and even as pornographic actors (La Cicciolina in Italy). No politician I can recall has gone out of their way to be photographed in revealing clothing, however.
The deliberate choice of body revealing clothes makes it appropriate to comment on that body. As one internet aphorism goes, any woman who wears a low cut blouse has no right to complain when people stare at her beasts, and that is true. When Palin, an established public figure, allowed herself to be photographed wearing those clothes, she put her body on a public stage, leaving it and herself open to comments. Jim Palmer, the great pitcher, opened himself to comments on his masculine appurtenances when he did an underwear ad in the ‘80s.
In general, I am no more interested in the breasts of a politician than I am in the penis of a politician. We all know these organs exist, and presume they have been used in one capacity or another. From a social standpoint, admitting the sexual role breasts play, it is not appropriate to make comments about them. If bodies are revealed by choice in public, then commenting becomes perfectly fair, just as it would if a male politician deliberately appeared in a Speedo.
The comments about Palin’s breasts thus seem to me to be irrelevant, fair, and non-sexist all at the same time. If she does not want to be judged by her body, se had best not be photographed in revealing clothng. That is not sexism; it applies for any politician.
Ted
In our ‘modern world’, is it right, fair, appropriate, sexually equal or exploitative, to discuss whether a female political figure has had breast surgery? Several thoughts.
Women are always going to be evaluated by their appearance. This is biological and anatomic reality. Testosterone receptors heavily populate the visual cortex and hypothalamus in primates. Male primates really do have a better sense of spatial judgment and their sexuality really is more visually based. There is no question men’s sexuality is more visually activated than most women’s.
Biology and sexuality are not the only determinants of social roles, however. Women at work should be evaluated like any worker- on performance, not appearance or genitalia. Part of a politician’s appeal is appearance. John Thune’s ‘matinee idol looks’ have been remarked upon many times. In that vein, it is entirely appropriate to remark on Palin’s general appearance or attractiveness.
Breasts have a complicated place in the evaluation of a politician. They are a very visible secondary sexual characteristic, and play a part in the visual appeal of all women. As such, they are like a beard shadow, which may be part of the overall appeal or non-appeal of a man (Thune vs. Nixon, for example). While they are part of visual assessment of attraction, their role in erotic attraction makes specific comments about breasts inappropriate in evaluating a politician, just as remarks about a man’s crotch bulge would be out of bounds.
Palin has complicated the situation by her pictures in a fitness magazine. These pictures were taken in a form fitting outfit, rather than a loose shirt and jogging pants. The pictures are not as revealing as a swimsuit, but certainly outline her body in a way that is unbecoming to a person who wants to be judged on competence rather than appearance. Many male politicians have been photographed jogging or otherwise exercising, but this is not quite the same. No male politician has deliberately allowed himself to be photographed in form revealing clothing when he was a politician. Many politicians have prior lives that may have involved the exposure of their bodies, as professional athletes (Bunning, Kemp), models and bodybuilders (Schwartzenegger and Ventura), and even as pornographic actors (La Cicciolina in Italy). No politician I can recall has gone out of their way to be photographed in revealing clothing, however.
The deliberate choice of body revealing clothes makes it appropriate to comment on that body. As one internet aphorism goes, any woman who wears a low cut blouse has no right to complain when people stare at her beasts, and that is true. When Palin, an established public figure, allowed herself to be photographed wearing those clothes, she put her body on a public stage, leaving it and herself open to comments. Jim Palmer, the great pitcher, opened himself to comments on his masculine appurtenances when he did an underwear ad in the ‘80s.
In general, I am no more interested in the breasts of a politician than I am in the penis of a politician. We all know these organs exist, and presume they have been used in one capacity or another. From a social standpoint, admitting the sexual role breasts play, it is not appropriate to make comments about them. If bodies are revealed by choice in public, then commenting becomes perfectly fair, just as it would if a male politician deliberately appeared in a Speedo.
The comments about Palin’s breasts thus seem to me to be irrelevant, fair, and non-sexist all at the same time. If she does not want to be judged by her body, se had best not be photographed in revealing clothng. That is not sexism; it applies for any politician.
Ted
Comments
Post a Comment