Mission Statement

WE ARE COMING OUT — MISSION FRAMEWORK

PART ONE: THE SYSTEM

We target discrimination in ALL FORMS.

 Our highlight: discrimination when it comes to the sexualisation and objectification of women's bodies — based on gender, skin colour, and body shape.

 Key issue: objectification.

Women are seen as objects (to be owned and controlled) for:

• War
• Population control / having babies
• Sex
• Unpaid caregiving (emotional and physical — home-keeping, raising children)

 

Depending on your skin colour and religion, you are put into different boxes and treated differently within these different levels of objectification. This is not accidental — it stems from colonisation, which places white people and white women in a higher social category than non-white women.

 

The system enforces this through violence — emotional and physical:

• Body image: women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies
• Behavioural standards: “women should be more modest”
• Told that men are aggressive in their nature and we have to accommodate for this
• Victim blaming
• The “protection” of women

 

Different groups experience different levels of vulnerability to these forms of control and violence.

PART TWO: THE SYMPTOM AND THE ARGUMENT

The nipple is not the issue. It is a symptom. Below is how the system justifies censoring it — and how each justification falls apart.

 

Each of the five arguments below directly mirrors one of the functions of objectification named above. This is not coincidence. The same logic that reduces women to objects for war, reproduction, sex, and caregiving is the exact logic used to police our bodies. We take it apart piece by piece.

 

Main statement: Women's nipples are not allowed to be seen.

Laws have been put in place and society carries a mentality of the subordination of women (→ research Berlin laws) because:

 

1. The idea of the characteristics of a good woman: women should be more modest than men
2. Women as baby-makers
3. The sexualisation of the breasts (declared an erogenous zone — as if that were fixed, neutral, or sufficient)
4. Religious and colonial interpretation of women's bodies: pure/sinful, temptation, objectifying women as a means of temptation
5. The “protection” of women — that women are more likely to be abused if they show their nipples

 

Second statement: Women are taught to be ashamed of their bodies.

Although the definition of an acceptable woman changes over time and across cultures, the definition of an acceptable woman is always enforced by shame — ignoring the individuality of a woman as a unique human being, and instead looking at her as: a sexual object, property, something that needs to be protected and perfected. Socially accepted misogyny.

The Intersectional Dimension

The risk of this protest is not the same for everyone, and we name that clearly.

The system above places bodies differently:

• White women's bodies are constructed as pure and in need of protection — “virtuous.” Their nudity is understood as vulnerability requiring defence.
• Women of colour's bodies are constructed as “animal,” nudity as their “ultimate form,” their sexuality framed as deviance. Their nudity has historically been forced, displayed, and punished — not protected.

 

Race, gender (non-binary and trans), sexual orientation and economic/social class, ability, religion and cultural background are all levels of intersectional vulnerability in the eyes of a white supremacist patriarchal system.

 

These are not two versions of the same experience. They are the product of colonisation, which placed white women in a category of “goodness” to be protected, while Black and Brown women's bodies were and continue to be hyper-sexualised, exhibited, and controlled differently. The system that polices our nipples is the same system that has always policed bodies along racial lines.

 

Consequences for the perpetrator also differ based on your skin colour. Amongst many other things, including access to medical attention, understanding of health and body, access to resources, legal and professional protection — the list goes on. For example, the violence against black and brown women is so much higher and yet less punished. If you are a black or brown trans woman you are even more vulnerable, and yet there are fewer consequences for the person who has committed the crime.

 

We also have to acknowledge that historically and presently white women have also participated in the control of women of colour and trans women (TERFs). White feminism “feminists” step on the necks of black and brown women to position themselves on the same level as white men, leaving behind other women for their own gain. This is not acceptable, and not what we stand for.

 

We hold this difference carefully. Those with more privilege in this space support those with less. We are in this together — and together means seeing each other clearly.

Our Counterarguments

These are the arguments used against us, and how we respond. Each connects directly to the system described in Part One.

 

Argument 1: Women should be more modest than men

(This is the system's behavioural standard — the idea that women must accommodate male comfort at the expense of their own freedom)

Consequences of enforcing this:

• Ignoring the individuality of women
• Erasing half of the population and their abilities and their personalities
• Creates an artificial privilege and a divide: an upper class (men) and a lower class (women)
• Creates ego in men
• Creates fear of losing this artificial privilege
• Creates competition amongst men — competing over who can “get” the most women (women seen as a resource to be taken)

 

Argument 2: Women as baby-makers

(This is the system's population control function — reducing women to their reproductive capacity)

Making a baby is just one of the many things women can do, and let’s be honest… it’s f*king incredible - whether people do it or not. And it should always be a choice. Body autonomy is key here. MY BODY, MY CHOICE.

 

Motherhood should be a choice, not a duty. Motherhood, when chosen, should be celebrated, admired, supported and protected (socially, legally and professionally). The opposite choice should also be supported, whether through non-judgmental and radical acceptance.

 

Motherhood stands on the sharp edge of constant pushing towards it — because of the idea of it being “a woman’s duty” — but the other side being that once you’re in it the path is quite lonely and the support is frail. Being a mother or wanting to be a mother is seen as a burden for some professions (and even, sadly, for some social circles). Having children is framed as a woman’s duty, but if you do it it feels like you’re basically f*ked.

 

Child-support for motherhood also includes intersectional vulnerabilities.

 

Argument 3: Sexualisation of the breasts (“apparently an erogenous zone”)

(This is the system’s sex function — defining women’s bodies by their presumed effect on men)

This ignores the enormous diversity in sexualities and bodies. Some people get turned on by feet, by hands, by voices. Are we covering all of those? The logic doesn’t hold — and it was never really about the body part. It was always about control.

 

The nipple can sunbathe, it can be pierced, touched sometimes, it can also just be a nipple — like men’s nipples. Men’s nipples can be clamped, licked, flicked, caressed, pierced, sexualised. Nobody legislates those.

 

Argument 4: Religious and colonial interpretation — women’s bodies as sinful, as temptation

(This is the system’s colonial function — using institutional religion to make women’s bodies into territory to be controlled)

When religion functions not as an individual belief but as a colonial project, women are seen as property and as a means of making more members. The Abrahamic religions — in their dominant, institutionalised forms — have been patriarchal and colonial in essence: subordinating women and reducing sexuality to the function of reproduction. The expansion of a religion has always meant making more followers. To do that, women’s reproductive capacity had to be controlled. Women’s bodies were made into territory.

 

Please note the distinction: The issue here is the institutional and colonial use of religion in their dominant, institutionalised forms, not individual faith.

 

Argument 5: The “protection” of women

(This is the system’s control mechanism dressed as care — the same logic that calls women property also claims to protect them)

Take it to the extreme: should we hide all children from paedophiles? Should we hide every body part that could theoretically tempt someone? The logic collapses.

 

This argument is not about protection. It is evidence of women being treated as less than men — as property in need of management. It ignores entirely the need and the ability to teach men self-control. Lack of self-control is not innate in men (e.g. Peggy Reeves Sanday’s research on “rape-free societies”). But beyond what is “natural” — this is about what kind of society we want to live in.

 

And crucially, this “protection” is not offered equally:

• White women’s bodies are seen as pure, virtuous, in need of protection.
• Women of colour are framed as already sexualised, already animal, already beyond protection.

 

This is the same system, operating at the same time, on different bodies, for the same purpose: control.

PART THREE: THE EVIDENCE

This is not history. It is now.

 

By going after what supports discrimination — skin colour, body shape, gender, “culture” — we aspire to bring to light and be a factor in the change and resistance against the system which is propped up by militarisation, capitalism, and patriarchy. We blow up this part of the system. We want to make a crack in the WHOLE system.

 

The system is visible everywhere:

• Social media: women’s nipples are not allowed to be seen, except in a sexualised context or a maternal giving role. We are fed this constantly. The rule is not neutral — it reflects exactly which bodies the system considers acceptable and for what purpose.
• The media landscape: imagery connecting guns and women’s naked bodies — linking violence and sexualisation directly. This is the visual basis for rape culture and violence against women. The same system that controls the nipple glorifies the weapon.
• Modern misogyny: the manosphere. People in state positions who are publicly misogynist. This is not fringe — it is increasingly mainstream and politically empowered. The system is not weakening. It is being reinforced.
• Capitalism profiting from discrimination and objectification: industries benefit when people feel pressure to modify, conceal, enhance, or manage their appearance. Companies are making money off manufactured insecurities.

OUR STANCE

We are not demanding something. Because it’s not something we need to ask for. We as humans of the earth, own our bodies and nobody else does.

 

What we are asking, is for people to understand.

 

IT’S MINE AND I’M JUST STATING THAT.

 

Check out this song by Dornika: Nobody F*king Owns My Body

 

My body. My choice. Nobody fucking owns my body.

Find what you are looking for