Hiromi_X
First they come for your boobs...
Then they come for your labia, your anus, and now your nipples!
By "they" I mean the commercial colonizers of the Land of Private Lady Parts.
I have Rufus to thank for the news flash. To get to the article, click on the ad they tell you to click on, and then click "having trouble viewing article" below the ad.
As if pressure to jack up boob size weren't enough, now women are told to worry about nipple color! The above Salon article reports on the hue and cry over a new product: nipple rouge. As explained by a spokeswoman for the company, "Women want nipples to be pert and fresh-looking...[f]or a long time, the idea of a ripe, rosy nipple has been considered appealing and alluring." Ha!
As a consumer, it's a stupid product, a lame attempt to get some mileage out of an obscure product line. Nipple makeup defeats the whole purpose of nipple allurement. Who wants their nipples to just be looked at? And it's "kiss proof," but who wants just a peck on the nipple?
It merits a mere eyeroll from me, but others see darker designs behind nipple painting. The author of this article in New York Magazine calls nipple paint "one more sign of the stripperization of the Everywoman," and quotes NOW president in New York Sonia Ossorio as stating, "I can barely keep up with keeping my nails manicured, much less this nauseating onslaught of new beauty standards. While women are spending their energy, time, and money getting their areolas just the right shade of pink, the Supreme Court is getting more conservative and closer to taking away our long-fought right to reproductive choice."
While it goes without saying that one might tint one's nipples and still find time to pay attention to reproductive rights, and that it's uncertain whether one product by one company constitutes an onslaught, this story nevertheless brought to mind other examples of alleged Lady Parts Colonization.
Vaginal rejuvenation and labial makeovers, for instance. This was one of the first to catch the attention of the media; here's a second article. As with most cosmetic procedures, there are "legitimate" reasons for vaginal/labial surgery, including botched episiotomies, severely loosened vaginal or pelvic floor muscles, and labia minora enlarged enough to cause physical, not aesthetic, discomfort. There *are*, however, disconcerting aspects to the aestheticization of body parts -- minor flaws are made matters of huge concern, and the results stress uniformity. Check out these before and after labia photos: many of the results look weirdly juvenile.
In any case, according to the Salon article, very few women are actually having the procedure done. The New York Times article is notable for its lack of actual numbers. The author quotes surgeons who say their business has quadrupled, but let's remember that going from two patients to eight qualifies as quadrupling. Other vague phrases include "remarkably amazing patient interest." This sounds like self-promotion on the part of the surgeons, not an actual surgical trend. It seems that the high profile of labiaplasty was attributable to a proliferation of ads or promotions alone; this does not constitute "colonization" to me. Also, does anyone remember the brief flurry over anal bleaching? This turned out to be mostly urban legend born of rumors heard by magazine editors from other style mavens who heard it from...you get the picture, and a few letters to sex columnists. In my own anal bleaching research, I came up with one sort-of documented example.
Panic over Private Lady Part colonization takes away from the larger issue of unattainable beauty standards. These standards bother me because they don't square with my idea of what a good society is like. I don't like living in a society in which even models can't be seen au naturel. Examples of how models are altered to conform to standard:
An interesting commercial for Dove's real beauty campaign.
Before and after model shots: here (click portfolio, then agree, then before/after) and here.
One of the best before and after sites: this has made the internet rounds several times.
But on the other hand, does any of this really mean anything? Now that I think about it, are these indicative of societal expectations for real people, or expectations of images of people in print media? Does anyone really expect actual people to look this way, or only simulacra of people to look this way?
In any case, I want to see real people both in real life and more often in the media.
Which is why I'm concerned about stupid beauty products and procedures; in my view, Hiromi the Consumer has much more power for change than Hiromi the Voter. How can I make society a happier place for women to live? By changing my consumption patterns to encourage the formation of an alternate corporate culture, 'cause let's face it: the public sphere is dominated by Evil Corporate Motherfuckers. I can shout as loud as I like, but only my money gets heard.
Comments
I look at this the way I do anal bleaching. Not on my body. A majority of people do, methinks. But I also know the people that DO get this done usually have the $/power to move a LOT of product. Unfortunately.
1. Posted by darkneuro on March 18, 2007
A majority of people get their anuses bleached, or are you talking body procedures in general?
2. Posted by Hiromi on March 18, 2007
I think DN meant the majority of people think "not on my body" like she does, but the few who don't weild a lot of dough, hence create the illusion of "desire" for the procedure. Though I could be mistaken.
It's interesting that NY Mag calls this nipple-coloring idea "one more sign of the stripperization of the Everywoman," when from everything I've seen, there's no movement to make women's nipples consistently rosy pink across the stripping or porn industries. Seems to me the nipple dying thing in particular (as opposed to some of the other body-altering procedures you describe) has far less to do with porn than it does to do with racism--one more sign of the never-ending "caucasian features are more beautiful" syndrome that has been rampant in the NON-porn women's magazines in the US for hundreds of years. (And by caucasian, I mean a very specific, idealized, "aryanified" kind of caucasian.)
3. Posted by Miss Syl on March 18, 2007
Nicely put, Hiromi!
First, thanks for tracking down the anal bleaching thing. People have asked me about it (as in "have you heard? Isn't it awful?") for at least a year and... I've never had an answer because... I've never heard anything but those question. Now I know why. (The interesting questions now are how such a non-thing could carry such legs -- duh, that's what defines and urban legend; and given the story's legs why hasn't an actual market emerged?)
Nipple rouge I know a little about, at least to the extent that there have been references to it in erotic history for at least generations if not millenia. Why, exactly, one would need a special product for it when we already have freight-cars of existing blushes, glosses, lipsticks, undercoats, overcoats, powders, shadows, and liners, arriving in more shades and tones than occur in all the plant and animal kingdoms together, that would do as well is another question altogether. I'd think anything that was effective and/or safe for lips would work as well anywhere else.
Your proposed remedie is appropriate.
Take care,
figleaf
4. Posted by figleaf on March 18, 2007
Interesting discussion. I support things in moderation myself. Lipstick doesn't put me off, but I think permanent lipstick is odd in the extreme.
As a member of the patriarchy I'm probably not supposed to have an opinion, but if body modification is a no-no, what's the position on piercing or tattooing? That seems a bit more of an extreme body-mod decision than say painted nipples (unless perhaps a woman goes for pierced AND painted nipples).
And just for the record, I happen to prefer women who look real and prefer the unpainted nipples because tangerine nipples just seem weird. I like blemishes and maybe some love handles and to be honest, I couldn't much tell the beauty differences in the before and after labia (although the logo on that one doctor's site looked disturbingly sausage-like).
Besides, plastic amazons like Tabitha Stevens scare me. She could put an eye out with one of her surgically engineered nipples. I'm not going close to those things without a pair of safety goggles. Someone should call the Consumer Product Safety Commision on that woman.
BTW, despite my lame attempts at humor here, it really is a problem, with waaaaay too many women (and some men) going over the hill. Still, it's been going on for centuries and I suspect that when the world dissolves into dust, the last man will be working his penis pump while the last woman will be painting her nipples.
Humans are a strange breed.
5. Posted by Omnipotent Poobah on March 18, 2007
I found the "before" labia pictures to be far more appealing. All the "after"s looked the same. Yawn.
6. Posted by aag on March 18, 2007
Syl, that actually crossed my mind -- pink nipples the ideal? Being a brown sort of person, that doesn't apply to me...
Figleaf, where there is no need, Corporate Motherfuckers will manufacture one.
Omni said:
As a member of the patriarchy I'm probably not supposed to have an opinion,
I know you're joking, but the opinion of the (intelligent) man on the street is always interesting.
...but if body modification is a no-no, what's the position on piercing or tattooing?
I'm not sure what position you mean, but here goes:
Piercing and tattooing aren't part of the patriarchal conspiracy because they are against mainstream norms. Or at least they used to be. And there's no "ideal" tattoo or piercing -- if you choose to have either or both, you have it your way.
I don't think anyone, except for maybe some religious types, are against body modification per se. It's surgery undertaken in order to make one's body conform to a widely-held ideal that is problematic.
AAG, that's 'cause you're One of Us, not One of Them.
And I totally don't get what was "wrong" with the labia to begin with!!! Except that they were the labia of grown women -- I guess those women just want juvenile genitals.
7. Posted by Hiromi on March 18, 2007
I don't take the Dove "Real Beauty" campaign too seriously. Unilever, the company that owns Dove, also owns Axe deodorant. Ever see those commercials for that particular product? The all have the same plot: a male uses the deodorant and is suddenly wanted by horny, very skinny, scantily-clad females who are also portrayed as vapid. It strikes me as extremely hypocritical to preach "real beauty" in regards to one product line while continuing to promote very unnatural standards of beauty in others.
8. Posted by Tirade on March 19, 2007
"It's surgery undertaken in order to make one's body conform to a widely-held ideal that is problematic."
I'd grant you that the "audience" for conforming by way of plastic surgery or cosmetics is much larger, but isn't a person who chooses tats or piercings also doing it to conform to their idea of what is attractive and/or to "belong" to a group who is like minded.
In other words, even if someone chooses tats or piercings to "rebel" against the larger norm, aren't they simultaneously joining another group called "rebels"? If that weren't the case, tats or piercings would be limited to a single person or such a small group that they would be practically invisible. The popularity of this type of modification doesn't suggest that. I'm not sure the size of the group you join means much.
Personally, I'm not for any body mod, but that's my personal choice. I figure if you want to do that sort of thing, who am I to argue.
I like this thread. It's a thinker.
9. Posted by Omnipotent Poobah on March 19, 2007
Omni said:
but isn't a person who chooses tats or piercings also doing it to conform to their idea of what is attractive
The operative word is "conform to *their* idea of what is attractive." There's the difference -- like people who style their hair with unusual cuts or colors or wear their own ideas of what constitutes "fashion."
There is a limit to what we can do to our bodies and clothes in order to mark our desire to separate ourselves from the mainstream, so I think it's easy for mainstreamers to lump the outsiders altogether into one category and miss some of the subtleties.
OTOH, I am of course doing some lumping myself in creating a category called "mainstream." Yet I think it's accurate to say that there is a dominant point of view (which I call mainstream), and that it's almost impossible to escape this point of view, whereas the small groups of outsiders are readily ignored, except when The Mainstream decides to coopt some of the regalia of the outsiders. The cooptations are always simplified and made uniform, however; e.g., tribal armband tattoos, the "tramp stamp" (small of back tattoos), belly button piercings.
In that sense, I'd say that group size *does* matter, in terms of being able to make your point of view pervasive and "common sense." It's common sense to be thin; it's not common sense to tattoo your face.
...and/or to "belong" to a group who is like minded.
There is nothing wrong with group affiliation per se. We are, after all, social animals. What I have a problem with is pressure to conform to the dominant point of view.
10. Posted by Hiromi on March 19, 2007
Nice counter-argument. I happen to agree with you, but I think it is my duty as a deity to double as a devil's advocate from time to time. It keeps me from getting bored and having plastic surgery on my expansive omnipotent ass :-)
11. Posted by Omnipotent Poobah on March 19, 2007
I'm sorry, I keep looking at the title of this post and mentally replacing the word 'for' with the word 'on'. I just can't help it.
12. Posted by Elvis on March 19, 2007
"Clitoral hood reduction" ?
WHY ??
13. Posted by Timory on March 19, 2007
Karl, I've been thinking the same thing. First I came for her boobs, then I came for her ass. Then I rested a bit and got rehydrated...
14. Posted by Ray on March 19, 2007
Hee! Karl and Ray are like the pervy version of Statler and Waldorf.
Timory, clitoral hoods clutter up the genital area, I guess.
15. Posted by Hiromi on March 19, 2007
I just looked at those before and after photos. Hymen repair? Does someone seriously care about that these days?
16. Posted by Miss Syl on March 20, 2007
Women from conservative religious or social backgrounds. There's some demand for it in some areas of Asia.
17. Posted by Hiromi on March 20, 2007
Nope, doesn't make any sense to me at all.
18. Posted by SheenV on March 20, 2007
Syl,
I'd guess the hymen types are married to the foreskin rejuvenating men.
19. Posted by Omnipotent Poobah on March 20, 2007
See Ray, this is why you and I are soul brothers.
20. Posted by Elvis on March 21, 2007
Nipple rouge was big in the 19th century and early 20th among ladies of "questionable virtue" (and I bet even before then, as well.) In the 20s it became all the rage for Flappers, who were busting out of conventional sexual rules for women.
My GF and I bought flavored nipple rouge back in the 90s at a sex shop. We liked the quaint appeal, both being avid readers. But it turned out to be lame, sticky and with no staying power.
21. Posted by 00goddess on March 24, 2007
nipple paint discussion on snopes.com:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=62;t=001327;p=1
orange and lilac, yeah!
http://hennaking.com/areola-dye.htm
22. Posted by lliered on April 16, 2007