As a youth I was taught that bosoms and their appurtenances were not a subject fit to be raised in mixed society. Indeed they were in that respect hardly more respectable than buttocks.
So why is it that to-day, when at the Corporation's "news" page we search for "breast implants," we find no fewer than two hundred and eight references?
Bosoms in themselves are pretty disgusting, and when hacked about and fiddled with they become doubly so. So why are they thrust upon us in this way? Where exactly is the "news"?
All that has happened is that a number of adventurous and gullible women have done something silly and contrary to Nature, and thus, not unexpectedly, got themselves into trouble.
The fact is no more "newsworthy" than if a careless ear-ring hole-borer, or a tattooist, were to do something in some way detrimental to his customers' health. Regrettable no doubt, but not "news."
Is it a perverse vanity that leads reckless people thus to mutilate themselves? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the pages of Freud and his colleagues, but I will venture no further in that direction. Give me a pristine and unadorned ear any day . . .
So we return to the question, where on Earth is the interest in all this to ordinary unreformed respectable people?
When ears and tattoos are ignored, but "breasts" are "news," the reason must logically reside in the mere idea "breast" - still a "rude word" in some quarters it seems! - perhaps in combination with the thought of the adventurousness of its owner. Those must be the elements that are found so thrilling and considered worthy of repetition day after day.
Should we not expect better from our Corporation?
Ed: the administrator (and another) find this post offensively anti-female and it's consequently being closed for the rest of the day, at least. ff
Now closed permanently following other complaints.
So why is it that to-day, when at the Corporation's "news" page we search for "breast implants," we find no fewer than two hundred and eight references?
Bosoms in themselves are pretty disgusting, and when hacked about and fiddled with they become doubly so. So why are they thrust upon us in this way? Where exactly is the "news"?
All that has happened is that a number of adventurous and gullible women have done something silly and contrary to Nature, and thus, not unexpectedly, got themselves into trouble.
The fact is no more "newsworthy" than if a careless ear-ring hole-borer, or a tattooist, were to do something in some way detrimental to his customers' health. Regrettable no doubt, but not "news."
Is it a perverse vanity that leads reckless people thus to mutilate themselves? Perhaps the answer is to be found in the pages of Freud and his colleagues, but I will venture no further in that direction. Give me a pristine and unadorned ear any day . . .
So we return to the question, where on Earth is the interest in all this to ordinary unreformed respectable people?
When ears and tattoos are ignored, but "breasts" are "news," the reason must logically reside in the mere idea "breast" - still a "rude word" in some quarters it seems! - perhaps in combination with the thought of the adventurousness of its owner. Those must be the elements that are found so thrilling and considered worthy of repetition day after day.
Should we not expect better from our Corporation?
Ed: the administrator (and another) find this post offensively anti-female and it's consequently being closed for the rest of the day, at least. ff
Now closed permanently following other complaints.
Comment