It seems that since the Oscars there has been an increased focus on boobs. Part of it may be the now infamous “We saw your boobs” song that Seth MacFarlene sang, or perhaps it was the red carpet where plenty of side boob and see through dresses were, for once, ignored in favour of Anne Hathaway‘s nipples apparently making her dress all pointy.
No matter the reason, boobs seem to be back in season, as if they were ever out of season. A walk through the checkout of a local store will allow you to see countless cleavage shots as the gossip magazines try to out do each other with sensationalism. Even the popular main stream, I nearly said respectable by mistake, women’s magazines seem to focus on breasts just a little too much on their covers. Take the latest issue of Cosmopolition, I wouldn’t suggest buying it, where Miley Cyrus, is bra-less and pushing her lady lumps together. Is this something that encourages women to buy women’s magazines?
Apparent news websites, such as the Huffington Post, seem to always have at least one feature, and photo gallery, of women wearing see through dresses, having a wardrobe malfunction, side boob or even women who have had breast augmentation. Of course the traditional values of the CBC is reflected on their website where there is no mention of boobs, unless you count the fawning article about Justin Beiber turning 19.
Do we, the general public, both girls and boys, men and women, need to be inundated with womanly parts all over the media? How many times had a movie featured an actress who drops her top at the drop of a hat? Do you remember a movie called Swordfish? Don’t worry if you can’t, I wish I could forget it! A 2001 movie starring John Travolta, Hugh Jackman, and for an additional one million dollars, five seconds of Halle Berry‘s uncovered boobs. In terms of the plot of the movie, is was pointless, un-needed and a simple publicity stunt. Nothing against the lovely Halle Berry but for one million extra dollars, her boobs could have at least sung a song or danced the bossa nova!
I am not against breasts, well not half as much as I would like to be but that is between my wife and me…… literally. They aren’t the be all and end all of a woman though. They should not be a selling point for a movie, a television show, a magazine, a website, or anything else. I am not going to buy a magazine because of a well endowered lady on the front cover. Why would I? Apart from the fact that the internet seems to have unlimited breasts for free, unless I am going to buy a magazine such as Playboy, only for the articles I can assure you, what difference does it make to have a lady on the cover? It seems that the more manly of magazines, especially bike, car and gun ones, seem to always feature ladies, if not in pictorials then in the advertisement. Yes, I want to buy an automatic weapon because of a bikini clad lady, covered in mud, smiling at me from the pages of a glossy magazine. Not.
Boobs can be distracting, in the same way that a nice pair of legs can. The same way that a sharp dressed man, or a six pack of abs can catch the eye of the ladies. It is natural, it is how our species works. We are attracted by attributes of the opposite sex and we then have babies and it all starts again.
No matter the shape, size, colour, or perkiness (I think that is a word and if not, it should be), or the scars of surgery, the breasts of a woman are just that, part of the woman and as should be respected as you respect the woman herself. To give men a freudian shiver, imagine if they were your mums boobs!
Of course, man boobs or moobs as they are more commonly called are something else completely and not something that should be spoken off in polite company!