Sunday, December 13, 2009

The World Is A Size Queen!


Recently I read an article on Megan Fox, the latest in the very long line of female Hollywood celebrities vying for eternal life and absolute power through fame and fortune. In one part of the article mention is made of a pair of artificial breast-enhancers (Fox refers to them as her "Boobies"), and I got to thinking about breasts. Yeah, yeah, I know what you are thinking - typical mysoginistic male, only thinking about one thing, et cetera, et cetera. But no, my thoughts were not focussed on the purely sexual. I was thinking more instead on why there would even be a need to "enhance" - or make bigger - one's own natural assets, purely so that they may seem more attractive or desirable. What is it about this concept about "size" being so damned important?

I'm not going to venture into the anthropological, historical or evolutionary factors regarding why breasts are attractive to anyone, apart from mentioning that it could be argued that larger, fuller breasts are symbolic of the milk-filled organs of a healthy and fertile young woman, thus making her more sexually attractive to the male of the species, who seek such mates in order to fertilize and produce more healthy young, and so on. No, I'm talking here about our culture's (current) obsession about size relating to sexual organs, specifically, the breast and the penis.

In modern Western society both men and women are bombarded with images and ideas of what is the optimum body shape. This appears to me to be an evolving, fashionable ideal. When I first became aware of the sexual female form the ideal was the "Elle Macpherson" shape - tall, athletic, buxom. Arguably (apparently) a more feminist, empowered look - so said the fashion magazines of the day - the Amazon as the ideal. But of course, most women look nothing like Elle Macpherson, and I remember even as a young male teenager thinking how impossible this was as a role model for girls. Sure, as an object of fantasy, Elle made the grade, but these women that the media of the day labelled "Supermodels" may as well have been "Superheroes" for all of the realistic attainability they represented. Naturally, the way the fashion industry works is that nothing should last forever, especially the mould of ideal womanhood, and so after Elle we had the Waif, Herion Chic, etc. One thing that has not been present (at least since the Cindy Crawford-era of the late 80's and early 90's) is the presence of breasts on our catwalks and fashion magazines. There may have been exceptions, but it could be argued that even Crawford was an exception to the rule. Breasts (larger ones at any rate) were generally confined to the "dirty" and "offensive" pornographic magazines that fouled newsstands and adult shops - a curious thing, when I think that there is this not-so-subliminal message being sent out by society that breasts serve only one function and that is sexual. Fashion magazines (that so often claim to help and educate young women, girls on the cusp of Womanhood) never show models that have ample bosoms. Despite what they claim to be doing to improve the self-esteem of their young (and not-so-young) readers, these magazines constantly fail to portray a variety of female body shapes in their pages - except of course for their token "Look At These Ordinary Girls Being Proud Of Their "Non-Standard" Figure" articles (wedged, of course, in between such drivel as "How To Have The Perfect Multiple Orgasm", "How To Please Your Man With Your Mouth", and "Anal Sex - There's Nothing To Be Afraid Of" - sounds more like the titles of cheap LA porn flicks rather than the educational and empowering fashion rags, no?). The so-called "Men's Magazines" (such as FHM and Ralph) fare no better, with nothing but over-sized hanging globes of breasts adorning every page from cover to cover - every woman portayed seems an utter parody, nothing more than a support system for their massive mammaries. If it's one thing I have noticed, it's that it is really only in pornographic magazines and adult sites on the internet - the very publications and sites that people claim objectify, degrade and humiliate women - where will you find a wide variety of shapes and sizes in the breast department. Oh, the irony!

But back to Megan Fox.

Apparently Ms Fox is not naturally "well-endowed", and seeks to deceive us all with the idea that her breasts are large, firm and shapely. Ms Fox considers that her audience will find her more sexually alluring with big tits. Perhaps there is the idea that if we hear her speak and see her less-than-massive jugs we will not be as inclined to see her next film, so the boobs are a part of the pitch - even if we don't like what she says or how she says it, we will be drawn to see her chest on the big screen. Nothing against Megan Fox (it's not her fault that there is this apparent pressure to look beautiful for the audience), for all we know she really is witty, intelligent and charming, but she is an example of how we are all somehow taught to make the connection with breast size and beauty.

Me? I'm not convinced. Which brings me to my next little chapter - vaginas.  Stay tuned.

Saturday, November 21, 2009

It's Okay To Dream Though, Right?

This morning I made the terrible mistake of looking at the real estate section of the paper. Now I feel totally fucking depressed. Without fail, every Saturday my good lady wife checks out the market, assessing prices per suburb, noticing the little fluctuations of value, and every Saturday morning I refuse to look at the same info - what's the point in dreaming a dream that will never come true? "It's good to know what's out there", she says. "To what end?" I wonder. It's like punishing yourself for a wrong you never committed. Anyway, with the missus and kid#2 away for the weekend, I thought I'd secretly check out the housing market (kid#1 was distracted by cartoons). So, feeling a little dirty (you know, like when you indulge the occassional urge to view some tasteful, if rather hardcore, er, 'adult' entertainment), but not in the least bit excited (unlike with said entertainment), I perused that most foul part of the paper. Now if my tastes are anything to go by, I'm in BIG fucking trouble! My dreams start at around the $1.3 million mark - and they are the fixer-uppers! The more I read, the more I was filled with dread.

A question: How the hell does anyone afford to buy a house? I work my arse off. I pay my taxes. I am an active and involved father. I treat my partner with respect. I love my family. I give to fucking charity. You see where I'm coming from here? I pretty much do everything right in terms of the values I was brought up with, and I still can't get ahead. Now, there's a pretty terrible message in all this, isn't there? IT DOESN'T PAY TO BE GOOD IN THE MODERN WORLD. After all the bills have been paid - rent, car loan, food, clothing, utilities, credit card, petrol, et cetera - there is nothing left for saving for the home deposit. There is no rich benefactor waiting to die to confer the required lump sum. Mum and Dad are not buying me a house for my 21st/marriage/whatever. The lotto odds are not improving over the 1-in-7,500,000 mark. As they like to say in the classics - I am totally screwed.

Moving on.

Pet Hate #1: (After the real estate section, of course.) Reading the "Money" section in the paper. If I see one more person writing in to Noel Whittaker asking for advice on how to manage their superannuation/savings/shares of a value exceeding, oh, I dunno, maybe $500 or more I will hunt down the person enquiring and fucking kill them! You know the type - "Dear Noel, (you can picture the fucker already, driving a souped-up erection substitute, writing his letter on his brand new G5000 iBook, sitting in his lavishly appointed sitting room) I have $3 million invested in shares, $250,000 in cash accounts, $2 million in superannuation, and other investments totalling $1.9 million - should I split my wealth into managed funds and real estate, or should I consolidate all into super and bonds? My taxable income for the last financial year was $750,000." What a fucking prick. YOU DON'T NEED FINANCIAL ADVICE YOU ASSHOLE! You already have everything you could possibly ever need! Thank you Noel Fucking Whittaker for giving these cumrags a platform to boast! You know what I want to see? I want someone (not me though, good Lord!) to write to our mate Noel and ask, "Dear Noel, I have a taxable income of $50,000. With the exception of about $60,000 invested in my employers' compulsory superannuation fund (which I can't touch until I retire, probably at around age 82), I have no money invested anywhere, a young and growing family, debts totalling approx $20,000, and about $30 in my pocket. Short of suggesting a lotto ticket, have you got any advice whatsoever for this Aussie Battler? No? Hmmm? Well? Didn't think so.

Monday, November 16, 2009

...And Now Off To Kill Some Fuckers!

So, I've been to work, went straight to the gym, ran for 5 kms, did my core work, 30 mins on the cross-trainer, 20 mins (quick) stretching. I've just had a lunch of chicken pasta, some apple juice, my vitamins. Now I'm off for a quick bike ride to a friend's place. I'm gonna play Modern Warfare II, smoke some pot, maybe a couple of cigarettes, and have a couple of well-earned beers. Crazy? YOU FUCKING BET YOUR ARSE I AM!!!

Sunday, November 15, 2009

Be Patient - I'm New To This Shit

Time to start anew. Out with the old, in with the... well, you know how it goes.

Reading Richard Dawkins' Greatest Show On Earth at the mo, and just thought I should put down here, for Mr Dawkins' benefit - OKAY ALREADY, I GET THE MESSAGE ALREADY ALREADY!!! Don't get me wrong, I'm as dyed-in-the-wool an atheist as you could get, but I GET THE FUCKING MESSAGE!!! Actually, Mr Dawkins is a pleasure to read - he generally goes down that subtle and gentle path that others (and I'm thinking of the scathing, mean and patronising Chris Hitchins - although I love him too!) eschew, using not just logic and science to reason his arguments, but a gentle, almost self-depreciating humour to tone and flavour some of the more unpalatable-to-believers ideas that are involved in the science of genesis (as opposed to Genesis). Others like Hitchins tend to include ridicule and insult to their diatribes, Dawkins avoids this. Anyway - what am I saying? Way too serious!