Thursday, July 07, 2005

Boobie Trap

Let's talk about breasts, shall we?

I know, I know. You're all out there thinking, "Well, it's about time!" But don't get so excited just yet.

On my way home from work the other day, I passed a man on a riding lawnmower in his front yard. He was balding. About 50ish. Topless.

And? His breasts were bigger than mine.

It started me thinking about the fact that if my oversized, saggy breasts were swinging in the breeze as I mowed my lawn, I'd be arrested. Well, at the very least, ticketed. Now this would never happen of course, because 1) I know better than to ever parade my flabby, nude body around on this very main road, and 2) I never mow the lawn, DUH, that's Jete's job.

But the point remains that there is a very large double standard when it comes to male and female nudity. And I just don't get it. Why should men be allowed to bare all of their scraggly chest hair while women are forced to cover up? After all, at least a woman's breasts can be functioning body parts. I mean, I fed two children with mine. They're kind of like an spare hand or two. Or a knee. Or a spleen. If I wanted to show off my spleen, would anyone object? Would I get a ticket? I think NOT.

This of course got me thinking a little deeper. I'm nothing if I'm not deep. Naturally, I started thinking about Hollywood.

The movie industry has their own double standard when it comes to nudity. Can anyone tell me why full-frontal nudity is "R-rated" when the actor is a woman, but if a man's bits and pieces are shown in all their ... um, glory, it is rated X? Does that mean that a woman completely naked in a movie is something acceptable and common, but film of a naked man is so naughty? So erotic it can only be distributed in dirty bookstores?

(Please try to ignore the laughing girl behind the keyboard.)

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not asking for more penis shots on the big screen. Frankly, well. I don't think they are all that pretty. I'll admit it. Most of them are downright funny looking. Erotic? Um, I'm gonna have to go with No most of the time. But thanks for trying. Even so, let's be equal here. If reproductive organs are X rated, shouldn't a woman's be X rated too?

I guess the ugly truth is, beauty makes all the difference. Some people (i.e. MEN) think naked women aren't quite as funny looking as naked men. Therefore, they allow more "beauty" (i.e. naked women) at lower movie ratings. So they can look at more "beauty" more often. At least that's what I take from my analysis. It doesn't make it right, or fair. It's just the way things are right now.

And honestly, I'm as much to blame for the double standard. I probably wouldn't have been thinking about any of this if the man on his lawnmower was a 20-something hardbody who resembled, oh, Colin Firth in the lake scene of Pride and Prejudice. In fact, I don't think I'd be coherent enough to write at all if that were the case. I might have just driven into a tree or something.

So to recap:

1. It's unacceptable for women to be publicly naked.... UNLESS a filmaker is making a few bucks in the deal.
2. Some men have bigger breasts than I'd do, and aren't ashamed to show them.
3. Colin Firth is a hottie.
4. ....

Sorry... I was looking at that picture again. What was I talking about?

1 comment:

M&Co. said...

I can go with those three things. Especially number 3!