Saturday, September 15, 2012

The Future Queen's Breasts

I have never understood the fixation regarding breasts. Seems to me, as someone who has had two of them for like 50 years already, that they are pretty run-of-the-mill body parts, with not much more going for them than other body parts, yet apparently everyone is wild for them. Sparking my interest in the subject is the recent news that Britain's royal family is considering a law suit against a French magazine for printing a blurry photo of a topless Princess Kate, caught sunbathing with one of those zoom lenses. Imagine--the future Queen of England has breasts; oy, gut in himmel!

Naturally this shocking disclosure caught the attention of the mindless monkeys over at CNN, who responded with a televised round-table discussion of journalists yammering about whether Kate should ever be topless anywhere, and that as a Royal, she has the responsibility to maintain an image of propriety, and this is just like when Princess Di was photographed by the paparazzi and we all know how badly that ended, and blah, blah, fucking blah! What's worse, this dire development comes somewhat on the heels of Prince Harry, the Royal Brother, being photographed nude in Las Vegas, which proves not only that underneath his royal clothing Prince Harry is naked, but that what happens in Vegas does not always stay in Vegas.

As for the breast thing: What's the big deal? It seems to me that if you've seen one, you've seen them all. They are almost always round, with a nipple in the middle, and come in various sizes. Fleshy milk glands comprised of connective tissue containing collagen, elastin and fat, with a few Cooper's ligaments thrown in for good measure, they have all but overtaken our society.  A naked breast drives people nuts! Anyway, what I consider shocking is the news that Kate is pregnant, which means she also must have a vagina, not to mention a uterus. Now that's nasty. I sure hope we don't ever see pictures of those.

4 comments:

  1. Reminds me of something I believe Jerry Seinfeld joked about "if women covered up their noses, we'd probably be fixated on noses". It's kind of far out there, but I wonder if there's not a lot of truth to that. We go so far as to allow breasts as long as there are "pasties" on the nipple that we become obsessed with breasts, yet to what end? I studied the human body through figure drawing and after a while you get used to it and I think some of the fetishization and objectification aspects drop away.

    ReplyDelete
  2. To that end, I think we would be better off if we didn't make a big deal about nudity, but instead were properly outraged when mutilated bodies and violence occurs, yet it seems in the media, just the opposite occurs. Mutilation and violence are daily sightings while a simple breast must be blurred out. And along with the backlash against puritanical non-nudity you get this weird view of nudity whereas we'd be a lot healthier and have healthier views on this stuff if it were no big deal.

    ReplyDelete

  3. This is totally a mars / venus issue. This blog, and the comments above, show a very female perspective. But I could wax on and on and on (and on and on and on and on) about breasts -- as could most every guy I know (some are more into legs, but not me :-D)

    Don't even get me started about YOUR spectacular breasts -- and dare I say that I have seen them often, so I don't think it is merely that these body parts are so often covered that makes them so ENDLESSLY fascinating and delightful.

    But as for the blog itself, great cadence, laughed repeatedly!!

    ReplyDelete

The Art of Living

In ad copy appearing on The Times of Israel website, a new luxury high-rise complex in Jerusalem "invites residents to participate in t...