It seems to be the trendy asseveration recently to call pompously with clenched fists, whilst ‘harumphing!’ to high heaven, for the annihilation of the presence of tits on magazine pages. It seems pleasant and homespun little women in wiry circular spectacles wearing twee little buns of hay-like hair atop their heads and with modest flower-imprinted dresses that reach their ankles have taken it upon themselves to try and turn the rest of the world into a rosy little hybrid of Dora the Explorer and cBeebies. Well I feel it my duty as the owner of both a penis and a fine vocabulary to fight the maternal hordes.
Firstly, amongst the squabbling, sonic squeaks of these 1950’s throwbacks comes the cliche cry of ‘think about the children!’. I think, ladies and gentlemen, that you are forgetting, whilst tearing copies of Nuts and Zoo from the shop shelves and sticking elastoplasts over page 3’s that parents bear quite a lot of responsibility for the material to which their children are exposed. To try and get rid of naked boobies, to be honest, smacks of – ‘I can’t be arsed to watch this little puke bucket 24/7 so, erm, could you just take all the bad shit away?’. I’m afraid it doesn’t work like that. If you are so highly strung that you feel it will eternally corrupt and pollute a child’s psyche to see a couple of fun filled bags of boob then treat the publication in which they hide as if it were a copy of Terminator 2. You wouldn’t let your kid take that off the shelf and pop it in the DVD player, so why don’t you take some responsibility and stop it from taking some soft-core porn from the shelf.
As an addendum to this point, I would make one further in the form of a question to these left-leaning proselytisers who wish to strap pillows to every hard surface on this planet: Why do you even give a shit? These children have not only seen boobs before; they’ve suckled on some for the majority of their existence thus far! Basically, why do you find the idea of some fat covered in skin dangling limply from a pair of shapely shoulders, offensive? Is it the nipples? I bet its the nipples isn’t it? Little milk-valves make everything offensive. Well in that case – shall we call for the destruction of Men’s Health? There’s hairy nipples all over that!
I’ve also seen it banded about that one objection to glamour models is that impressionable young females may get their wonderful little minds warped by these pictures and their self-image may be permanently distorted to think that all they’re good for is as living, breathing sex dolls. Bollocks. What this train of argument suggests is that all women should be modest little prudes in order to be successful and should never see any other woman who may not be blessed with a beautiful mind but has chosen another career path. There are braniacs, artists, airheads and beautiful people in both genders. When Arnold Schwarzenegger flexed his pulsating, vascular arms and glistened with sweat as Conan the Barbarian (nipples on show), I don’t think one man or, for that matter, woman, protested because he was defiling the self-image of impressionable young boys everywhere. Furthermore, it again comes down to a question of parenting; it is up to parents to instil the self-confidence in their child to be able to see and accept some peoples paths and to choose their own.
Lastly, perhaps these women may be objectified, but that is both par for the course and by-the-by; it is their choice to pose for camera flashes and to earn a pretty penny whilst doing so. I’m sure the African tribal women on the cover of National Geographic can but salivate at the sums being paid to these admirable areola advocates and must wonder what all the fuss is about! After all, they wake up, make breakfast, go to the toilet, walk around and look at the scenery all with breasts abounding. PS – I don’t hear objection to the objectification of Channing Tatum when he minces about in Magic Mike.
So I would say this to the ‘cover yourself up’ merchants; leave the buxom beauties alone and go about your business because these women’s careers are none of it. Also, stop scapegoating! To blame these voluptuous sirens for your child’s misdemeanours and harlotry is but dirty and underhanded scapegoating. In the same way its simpler to blame Burkha wearing Muslims or the immigrants for what ails the country than it is to blame a faceless corporation or an overly complicated and flawed financial system exacerbated by incomprehensible banking practices; it is easier to blame a bouncing pair of titties for a child’s sluttery than to attribute responsibility to your own failed parenting.