My sexuality is a central part of who I am, and my breasts are a large part of that (no pun intended). So I have no problem with drawing attention to the sexual aspects of myself.
Which is fine for you. You may have your own opinion on this. I do take exception to "Save the ta-tas" campaigns for several reasons, as a woman and as a sexual being:
-While I am a sexual being, that's not all I am. And my sexuality is not confined to my breasts. In a sexual relationship, I want a man to pay attention to me as a woman, not just atomized body parts. And frankly, if any man says to me, "You have ta-tas; I want your ta-tas," he's not getting into my bed.
-After getting a breast cancer diagnosis, many women are told, "We have to remove your breast or you'll die." "Save the ta-tas" implies "We don't care about women who don't have breasts; we'd rather you die than live without breasts (which we'll call ta-tas because we're too ashamed to say the word 'breast.')" It's saying "breasts are important; lives are not." That's a pretty horrible message for a campaign that's supposed to be about helping people with breast cancer. (And no, I don't think that's the deliberate goal of this campaign; it is how the message comes across to many breast cancer survivors.)
-While I have nothing against willing expressions of sexuality, cancer campaigns are a terrible time to sexually objectify women. We're fighting for our lives and for the lives of others. That's not hyperbole. Being told, "This is a cause near and dear to your heart; therefore, you need to be quiet while men talk about how ta-tas are hot," is offensive to me.
The equivalent would a panel of some sort, with one woman panelist. Each of the men speak, but when the moderator gets to the woman, he says, "You have great boobies. Let's hear it for the boobies!" and moves on to the next male panelist. Yes, breasts are a part of most women, but we are not just breasts. And let's say this woman is a confident, well-adjusted sexual being. Chances are that she would not be flattered; she would likely be offended that she had just been reduced to a sex toy. And at least she was acknowledged as an individual. "Save the ta-tas" doesn't even do that much.
if I lost a breast to cancer, I would still be a full woman; but it would be incredibly painful to me to lose that wholeness
And it is incredibly painful to many breast cancer survivors as well. That's why many of them are hurt by this campaign.
Here's my question: The stated purpose of "Save the ta-tas" is to help people diagnosed with breast cancer. Even if half the women out there are not offended, half of us are. So why do they need to market their campaign in such a way that half the people they want to help are hurt? Why not try to find an approach that doesn't alienate so many of those who are affected?
I'm certainly sorry if I offended you; it wasn't my intent. I always thought of "Save the Ta-tas" as a lighthearted attempt to raise breast cancer awareness through humor (apparently they're also making stacks of cash while they're at it). Of course, humor is incredibly subjective. As such, whenever anyone tries to bring humor to such a grave condition, people are going to be offended. And I can certainly understand why you would take offense.
So why would they choose such an approach? Um...because it's made them a ton of money?
I'm certainly sorry if I offended you; it wasn't my intent.
You didn't offend me. I was just trying to clarify my position. I hope I didn't offend you either.
I always thought of "Save the Ta-tas" as a lighthearted attempt to raise breast cancer awareness through humor
Many do, which is why these campaigns are so popular; it's pretty much just breast cancer survivors who object. Humor is ok, but it should come from the people directly affected and not be at their expense. (There's a great t-shirt out there that says, "Of course these are fake. The real ones tried to kill me!")
Which is fine for you. You may have your own opinion on this. I do take exception to "Save the ta-tas" campaigns for several reasons, as a woman and as a sexual being:
-While I am a sexual being, that's not all I am. And my sexuality is not confined to my breasts. In a sexual relationship, I want a man to pay attention to me as a woman, not just atomized body parts. And frankly, if any man says to me, "You have ta-tas; I want your ta-tas," he's not getting into my bed.
-After getting a breast cancer diagnosis, many women are told, "We have to remove your breast or you'll die." "Save the ta-tas" implies "We don't care about women who don't have breasts; we'd rather you die than live without breasts (which we'll call ta-tas because we're too ashamed to say the word 'breast.')" It's saying "breasts are important; lives are not." That's a pretty horrible message for a campaign that's supposed to be about helping people with breast cancer. (And no, I don't think that's the deliberate goal of this campaign; it is how the message comes across to many breast cancer survivors.)
-While I have nothing against willing expressions of sexuality, cancer campaigns are a terrible time to sexually objectify women. We're fighting for our lives and for the lives of others. That's not hyperbole. Being told, "This is a cause near and dear to your heart; therefore, you need to be quiet while men talk about how ta-tas are hot," is offensive to me.
The equivalent would a panel of some sort, with one woman panelist. Each of the men speak, but when the moderator gets to the woman, he says, "You have great boobies. Let's hear it for the boobies!" and moves on to the next male panelist. Yes, breasts are a part of most women, but we are not just breasts. And let's say this woman is a confident, well-adjusted sexual being. Chances are that she would not be flattered; she would likely be offended that she had just been reduced to a sex toy. And at least she was acknowledged as an individual. "Save the ta-tas" doesn't even do that much.
if I lost a breast to cancer, I would still be a full woman; but it would be incredibly painful to me to lose that wholeness
And it is incredibly painful to many breast cancer survivors as well. That's why many of them are hurt by this campaign.
Here's my question: The stated purpose of "Save the ta-tas" is to help people diagnosed with breast cancer. Even if half the women out there are not offended, half of us are. So why do they need to market their campaign in such a way that half the people they want to help are hurt? Why not try to find an approach that doesn't alienate so many of those who are affected?
Reply
So why would they choose such an approach? Um...because it's made them a ton of money?
Reply
You didn't offend me. I was just trying to clarify my position. I hope I didn't offend you either.
I always thought of "Save the Ta-tas" as a lighthearted attempt to raise breast cancer awareness through humor
Many do, which is why these campaigns are so popular; it's pretty much just breast cancer survivors who object. Humor is ok, but it should come from the people directly affected and not be at their expense. (There's a great t-shirt out there that says, "Of course these are fake. The real ones tried to kill me!")
Reply
Leave a comment