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.


  1. I'm speechless but very entertained by this article.

  2. mmmmmmm cunt wait for that one. hehe

  3. I'd agree here, I'm not a fan of 'Bigguns' I look at boobies from an asthetic/artistic POV.

    Shape, bounce, skin tone. It's a lot of things, but sure as hell it ain't 'bigger the better'!

  4. Yes, men look at the breast first than the looks of the face. And men who love bigger boobs have the quality and quantity of partner relationship.

  5. Er, interesting comment, Susan. I'm not sure we share the same native tongue, but I certainly appreciate your curious and unique penchant for unusual syntax. Thank you for commenting.