After Instagram deleted her topless photo, Sarah Silverman responded with the perfect post.

Photo by Yong Tek Lim / Getty Images

Warning: This story includes a photo of a woman's bare nipples. If you can't handle the sight of breasts, please turn back now.

Sarah Silverman has made a career out of pushing boundaries. She first caught the public’s attention for looking like the girl next door while making jokes that were shocking and subversive.

On May 7, she tried to see how far she could go on social media by posting a topless selfie of herself standing in front of a bathroom cabinet. Instagram’s censors quickly removed the photo, claiming it violates community guidelines.


Per Instagram's community guidelines, they “don't allow nudity.”

“This includes photos, videos, and some digitally-created content that show sexual intercourse, genitals, and close-ups of fully-nude buttocks. It also includes some photos of female nipples, but photos of post-mastectomy scarring and women actively breastfeeding are allowed. Nudity in photos of paintings and sculptures is OK, too,” the company stated.

Later, Silverman posted the photo to Twitter where she pointed out the double-standard in the perceptions of male and female nipples.

“Men’s breasts are not obscene but women’s breasts are obscene (unless they’re oiled up and smashed down by sexy suspenders covering the obscene nipples),” Silverman captioned the photo. “Sorry, @instagram ! You are teaching our girls well! Thanks for the guidance! LESSON LEARNED : girls: be ashamed. Be very ashamed.”

She then returned to Instagram and shared a photo of a man with large breasts next to her offending photo, but this time her nipples were covered up. “Not Obscene vs Obscene. GOT IT,” she captioned the photo.

View this post on Instagram

Not Obscene vs Obscene. GOT IT

A post shared by Sarah Silverman (@sarahkatesilverman) on

It’s understandable that Instagram doesn’t want to devolve (or evolve, depending on your viewpoint) into a pornographic site, but there should be some parity in how men and women are treated in terms of nudity.

How about we allow both men and women to show their nipples as long as the image isn't pornographic in nature? Instagram's new policy could be based on the 1964 Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart definition.

“I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [hard-core pornography],” the justice said. “But I know it when I see it …”

If the internet has taught us anything it’s that what’s erotic and what isn’t is in the eyes of the beholder. Silverman’s photo was an artistic shot of a woman having an intimate moment. Instagram should let its users decide whether they approve by either following or unfollowing Silverman on the platform.

lop
Family

I'm staring at my screen watching the President of the United States speak before a stadium full of people in North Carolina. He launches into a lie-laced attack on Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, and the crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Send her back! Send her back! Send her back!"

The President does nothing. Says nothing. He just stands there and waits for the crowd to finish their outburst.

WATCH: Trump rally crowd chants 'send her back' after he criticizes Rep. Ilhan Omar www.youtube.com

My mind flashes to another President of the United States speaking to a stadium full of people in North Carolina in 2016. A heckler in the crowd—an old man in uniform holding up a TRUMP sign—starts shouting, disrupting the speech. The crowd boos. Soon they start chanting, "Hillary! Hillary! Hillary!"

Keep Reading Show less
Recommended
via EarthFix / Flickr

What will future generations never believe that we tolerated in 2019?

Dolphin and orca captivity, for sure. They'll probably shake their heads at how people died because they couldn't afford healthcare. And, they'll be completely mystified at the amount of food some people waste while others go starving.

According to Biological Diversity, "An estimated 40 percent of the food produced in the United States is wasted every year, costing households, businesses and farms about $218 billion annually."

There are so many things wrong with this.

First of all it's a waste of money for the households who throw out good food. Second, it's a waste of all of the resources that went into growing the food, including the animals who gave their lives for the meal. Third, there's something very wrong with throwing out food when one in eight Americans struggle with hunger.

Supermarkets are just as guilty of this unnecessary waste as consumers. About 10% of all food waste are supermarket products thrown out before they've reached their expiration date.

Three years ago, France took big steps to combat food waste by making a law that bans grocery stores from throwing away edible food.According to the new ordinance, stores can be fined for up to $4,500 for each infraction.

Previously, the French threw out 7.1 million tons of food. Sixty-seven percent of which was tossed by consumers, 15% by restaurants, and 11% by grocery stores.

This has created a network of over 5,000 charities that accept the food from supermarkets and donate them to charity. The law also struck down agreements between supermarkets and manufacturers that prohibited the stores from donating food to charities.

"There was one food manufacturer that was not authorized to donate the sandwiches it made for a particular supermarket brand. But now, we get 30,000 sandwiches a month from them — sandwiches that used to be thrown away," Jacques Bailet, head of the French network of food banks known as Banques Alimentaires, told NPR.

It's expected that similar laws may spread through Europe, but people are a lot less confident at it happening in the United States. The USDA believes that the biggest barrier to such a program would be cost to the charities and or supermarkets.

"The logistics of getting safe, wholesome, edible food from anywhere to people that can use it is really difficult," the organization said according to Gizmodo. "If you're having to set up a really expensive system to recover marginal amounts of food, that's not good for anybody."

Plus, the idea may seem a little too "socialist" for the average American's appetite.

"The French version is quite socialist, but I would say in a great way because you're providing a way where they [supermarkets] have to do the beneficial things not only for the environment, but from an ethical standpoint of getting healthy food to those who need it and minimizing some of the harmful greenhouse gas emissions that come when food ends up in a landfill," Jonathan Bloom, the author of American Wasteland, told NPR.

However, just because something may be socialist doesn't mean it's wrong. The greater wrong is the insane waste of money, damage to the environment, and devastation caused by hunger that can easily be avoided.

Planet

Policing women's bodies — and by consequence their clothes — is nothing new to women across the globe. But this mother's "legging problem" is particularly ridiculous.

What someone wears, regardless of gender, is a personal choice. Sadly, many folks like Maryann White, mother of four sons, think women's attire — particularly women's leggings are a threat to men.

While sitting in mass at the University of Notre Dame, White was aghast by the spandex attire the young women in front of her were sporting.

Keep Reading Show less
More

Men are sharing examples of how they step up and step in when they see problematic behaviors in their peers, and people are here for it.

Twitter user "feminist next door" posed an inquiry to her followers, asking "good guys" to share times they saw misogyny or predatory behavior and did something about it. "What did you say," she asked. "What are your suggestions for the other other men in this situation?" She added a perfectly fitting hashtag: #NotCoolMan.

Not only did the good guys show up for the thread, but their stories show how men can interrupt situations when they see women being mistreated and help put a stop to it.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture