Twitch allowing more nudity after disproportionately banning female streamers | Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist.
Twitch allowing more nudity after disproportionately banning female streamers | Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist.
Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist.
Twitch allowing more nudity after disproportionately banning female streamers | Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist.::Twitch confirmed its policy banning nudity was sexist.
You're viewing a single thread.
Sexism is an issue with gaming for sure but banning nudity is not sexism.
It is if women's nipples are nudity but men's nipples are not.
Why not have a "no nipples" policy in general? I'm guessing that if parents think that their 7 year olds are going on Twitch to see boobs, they could lose some viewers.
But yes, policies should be applied equally.
Because having a no nipples policy is a stupid way to live your life. Free your nipples.
I'd rather not show you my nipples.
Fine keep your secrets.
Something wrong with them huh?
This is not about women being free to go shirtless which is fair, this about eyeballs and ads. This lazy sex work. This corporate giants profiteering. This about that corporate giants maintaining brand image control. Reducing it to a slogan is missing the rest of the picture.
Free the nipple
I agree with you but this is more of a societal issue and not necessarily a Twitch issue. I think Twitch following the standards set by society was reasonable however them pushing to improve upon those is absolutely welcome.
I disagree. At one point in time it was society saying black people couldn't eat with white people and it was people and companies willing to push that boundary that changed this.
We are all members of society and it is on us to constantly push back against the unfair traditions in our community.
Did you just equate Jim Crow with not being able to see titties on a mainstream streaming site?
You know you can see titties on other streaming sites, right?
This is just a bad strawman. People want equality, not titties. Jim Crow is only used as a analogy to show that pushing back on inequalities is a good thing, and "we're just following societal standards" isn't a really good excuse.
Yikes why even reply to people if you want to be this deliberately dishonest.
Yikes, you’re the one who brought up Jim Crow in the context of seeing titties on twitch.
How else am I supposed to interpret your desire for society to progress when you go from Jim Crow straight to “free the nipple”
You could have brought of women’s suffrage or any other women’s struggle, but you chose the racism side of things.
How dare wanting to treat people fairly be cited when wanting to treat people fairly. Time to strawman that people just want boobies.
I would have to sit here wading through accusations and strawmans to try and get anything through to you. That's why it's a yikes because you don't care to be more mature than a 15 year old about this and it show.
Bad take in my opinion. It's quite clear the difference between the two in our society.
Wait a minute could our society be sexist?
Maybe, maybe not, that really makes no difference here
Yeah, but that difference is specifically rooted in sexism and misogyny. The very fact that we can all see the difference that isn't much of a difference shows that there's a divide that needs to be bridged. We only think women's nipples are inappropriate because we were taught to. Plenty of cultures around the world don't see breasts as inappropriate, and they're doing just fine.
Yeah, but you're not going to stop people (generally) from getting horny when looking at breasts no matter how much you educate them. So idk what your goal is.
It's hard-wired.
No, it's not. People at nude beaches or at nudist colonies aren't walking around with erections all day. African communities where women don't wear tops don't have guys jerking off whenever they get a chance. The sexualization of breasts in our culture is a product of our association with breasts as a purely sexual object, and the viewing of them as a purely sexual act. The way that stops being a thing is by allowing them to exist in non-sexual contexts, and teaching a new generation that they are just like any other body part.
If a girl nonchalantly takes off her top while going about her day today, it will be viewed as a sexual thing, because anyone who sees will have only seen such an act in sexual contexts. If, for several years, women all around the US are empowered to nonchalantly take off their tops whenever feel like it, it will become a common, non-sexualized act, because it will be associated more with everyday life than with what people do behind closed doors.
Just out of curiosity, total non sequitur here:
Do you believe homosexuality is a choice?
Your "non-sequitur" is trying insinuate that a person's innate sexual orientation toward certain genders mirrors an innate sexual response to certain body parts, which I don't disagree with. I find women beautiful, and in the right circumstances, I have a sexual response to that beauty. The difference lies between simple attraction and horniness.
I'm attracted to a beautiful woman wearing clothes that compliment her beauty. Do I immediately get a hard on? No. Do I become unable to function as a result of seeing her? No. Whatever reaction I have toward her beauty is my own circumstance to handle - she is under no obligation to change herself based on my reaction. I'm attracted to her, but seeing women wearing well-fitting clothes is a normal part of my day, so I don't find it overtly sexual. It can become sexual if the woman starts flirting with me, for example, but just wearing nice clothes doesn't make me horny, because most women wear nice clothes simply because they want to.
I see my wife topless all the time, and while I think she's beautiful, I don't get horny at every sight of her, nor should I. Most of the time she just doesn't want to deal with putting a shirt on - she's not trying to turn me on, and I'm not getting tuned on. This is a normal example a woman comfortable with being topless in a non-sexual situation, and a man, used to seeing that woman topless, not having a strong reaction to it. This is how all men, regardless of sexual orientation, would see breasts if women were as comfortable not wearing a shirt around men as my wife is around me. If my wife were to start teasing me and trying to turn me on, I would start getting horny, because that's the appropriate time for a person to have a sexual response to another person's body.
How would she even tease you if her naked body doesn't get you going?
By using her body sexually. Are you really so unfamiliar with seeing people naked that you think it's the nakedness itself that's supposed to be sexual? Have you never seen the difference between a woman taking off her bra because it's stuffy and a woman taking off her bra because she wants sex? There's "Yup, it's her naked body." and then there's "Hell yeah, her naked body!" You just go ravenous any time your SO is naked around you, ever?
A horny teenage boy is a prime target for abuse. You may think it’s cultural, but you may also be wrong. Hormones are a helluva drug.
A horny teenage boy better learn to keep his hands to himself. I don't give a shit what he feels compelled to do, and neither should any woman who happened to set him off.
You have a story in your head you’ve answered a question to. It has nothing to do with my comment.
As do you, insinuating hormones making people want to do things is reason enough to expect them to do it. Society relies upon people having the self control to not behave based solely on the way their body tells them to, and instead to behave as society deems appropriate. People want to take things, to hurt others when they feel hurt, and to have sex with people they're attracted to, but for us to live together, people need to have control over that. If they don't, they need to be taught, and if society deems something inappropriate that shouldn't be, we need to change society to allow for that act.
I was simply pointing out that my comment had nothing to do with sexual assault. The abuse I speak of is professional prostitutes now being given access to young children who don’t yet necessarily have the capacity for adult reasoning. There are lonely kids at home with free time whose parents have to work more than they should have to. Lonely people, never mind children, seek out comfort in both healthy and unhealthy ways. It depends on what’s available to them.
The child psychiatrist in my family portrays the current state of adolescent research very succinctly: The only effective way we’ve found to curb “unwanted” behavior in children is to limit exposure. Past a certain point, a routine forms and they are no longer predisposed to observed behaviors. In effect, people make their own choices. If you put good choices in front of them, they take them. If you put a mix, they take the good with the bad.
You put breasts on twitch, you’re going to have more people searching for breasts. Forcing a change isn’t going to fix the underlying societal structure that formed around nudity. You’re just going to mess up a lot of kids with your misdirected efforts.
That doesn't mean society isn't sexist. There's lots of bullshit society is sexist about like how men can't be loving and affectionate parents.
Or how you can mutilate male sexual organs for profit but can't do so to female sexual organs
Society also says a kilt and a plaid skirt are two different things. Yet my Scottish roommate wore a plaid skirt from Zara to a party and no one batted an eye.
Free the balls, man.
Show of hands, how many here have jerked it to male nipples?
Some people have jerked it to fully clothed women. Ought we ban every woman from twitch? Maybe enforce hijabs?
Too sexy, must enforce nikabs!
Keep it flaccid or we're going full burka!
No, that's literally how the laws in most countries work. It turns out men and women have different biology.
There are literal sex differences between men and women. If we include those in the definition of sexism, we cheapen the word.
You should apply for the fantastic four with that much stretch. They're fucking nipples and we literally stick them in the mouths of our infants. You know damn well that we're not talking about the differences between men and women but the way society and twitch threats people differently.
Even men who present as women on twitch have seen this. Finnster has had bans for shit nobody would care about if he weren't so feminine looking.
Yes, we're talking about the way society and twitch treats people differently... on the basis of physical sexual characteristics expressly regarding the topic of physical sexual characteristics. I've never used Twitch, but unless there's something I'm supposed to be reading inbetween the lines, I don't see the problem with banning female nipples. If society is going to have any standards on the rejection of nudity, I don't see why the line has to be drawn somewhere before nipples and no further.
When you say “Physical sexual characteristics,” do you understand that the word “sexual” refers not to the act of sex but to a person’s biological sex? Physical sexual characteristics include anything that expresses differently due to differing amounts of gonadocorticoids, like a person’s height, their body and facial hair, their body shape, the sound of their voice, their ease with developing muscle mass, etc..
A woman’s (or femme presenting person’s) nipples are not sex organs any more than a man’s mustache is.
I agree with all of that. I don't see our two comments as in conflict, except that when I said "societ[al]... standards on the rejection of nudity", I didn't draw the line at sex organs. But I don't think Twitch is going to ban short people any time soon, if you're worried about a slippery slope.
My original reply was in regards to the word "sexist". If your definition of "sexist" is so morally neutral that it includes literally any kind of discrimination between sexes, then that's fine; this is "sexist", and so are all of us. But since most people use "sexist" to refer to a moral transgression, it seems silly to me to pretend that male and female nipples are the same, and I don't see any moral hazard in saying so.
Whether or not society should care so much about titties isn't a question I was trying to address, only that it's not sexist to do so.
It is sexist to treat men and women differently without a good reason, and it doesn’t seem that there’s a good reason in this case, which means that doing so is sexist.
Regardless of morals, from a biological perspective, treating male and female nipples differently is irrational, since male chests are also physical sexual characteristics. To be clear, I’m differentiating from the perspective of “these two body parts are shaped differently and therefore have different needs when fashioning clothing” perspective. There’s a good reason to do that (though there isn’t a good reason to enforce it). But from a “one is sexual, one is not, so one needs to be covered and the other doesn’t” perspective, what’s the reason? You indicated that they’re physical sexual characteristics but as I already pointed out, physical sexual characteristics aren’t generally required to be covered. People find both men’s and women’s chests (and other body parts) sexually attractive, so that isn’t it, either.
If you’d say that society treats them differently because we’ve historically objectified and sexualized women (and continue to do so) and as a result women’s bodies are considered sexual in a way that men’s aren’t, and this is ingrained in our culture at this point then I would agree with you. I just don’t agree that that’s a “good reason.”
Women’s breast produce milk, which comes from procreation. That’s more sexual than a man’s non-functional nipples, even if slightly. Other animals don’t have enlarged breast like humans do. That points to them having an estrus function in addition to their biological function. Breast very well may be a hard-wired arousal point.
Feeding infants isn’t sexual.
What’s the difference between male and female nipples?
Female nipples produce milk, for one. Note, that doesn't mean I think they should be banned.
Males can also lactate if they have elevated levels of prolactin (which can be genetic). It’s fascinating stuff, some cis guys can allegedly get “sympathy lactation” after their partners give birth. There are also quite a few other species of mammals that have males lactating over females.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/strange-but-true-males-can-lactate/
However, guys, if you do start spontaneously secreting fluid out of your nipples, I would suggest getting yourself to a doctor.
I would rather not see any nudity on my gaming streams...