When patriarchy collides with feminism, the collateral sociological damage can be significant. The power struggle –as it concerns sexual perception and reality– has created certain colloquialistic compromises, if not sexual concessions. Indeed, these are lasciviously confusing, if not sex-o-phobic times in which we live. The result of which is often a politically correct –albeit incorrect– presumption of one’s libidinous inclinations.
And as with any other form of political correctness, it comes at the expense of honesty.
As such, the travails of boob-men are many. Denounced by the estrogenic body politic as lecherous and insensitive, those among the Y-Chromosome masses who find themselves inexorably drawn to a disproportionate female facade are often painted with the same broad brush stroke as public masturbators. Depicted as social pariahs –incapable of emoting beyond an awkward grope or an insincere motivation– men who are wired to erect at the sight of a significant mammalian cantilever have had to deny the nature of their genetic predisposition, and pretend that a woman possessing a sensationally superfluous stack is of no more carnal interest than a can of tuna fish.
But we all know that is bullshit.
For in a purely social setting, the American male is permitted by the gynecological elite to acknowledge a beautiful pair of eyes, but not a formidable pair of projectile intumescences. It is socially acceptable for a man to approach a woman and comment on the way the moonlight glistens off of her hair, but not suggest an equal affection for the pleasant aesthetics of her preposterously prolific pontoons. What makes eyes or hair a more compliment-friendly body part than her squeezies? Does this strike no other as hypocritical, when everyone involved in this perfidiously interactive fiasco is painfully aware that it takes every ounce of self restraint a boob aficionado can summon to maintain eye contact?
In a world committed to truth, and sexual equality, the conversation should go more like this:
“Excuse me, I couldn’t help but notice the gravity defying slope of that majestic rack you’re so proudly displaying via the textile limitations of your sweater. I’d like to buy you a drink, and if the evening progresses thusly, it is my sincerest wish to have my face buried therein sometime in the near future. Although I would not be so bold as to suggest a proper time-table, I do so find your copious silhouette extraordinarily attractive. And should you be so inclined to not view me as a less than suitable candidate for your affections due to my candor, and would have preferred that I pretend not to have noticed the gigantic jumblies jostling under that woefully inadequate –albeit extremely revealing– top your wearing, I’d truly appreciate it. You see, it’s not that gargantuan gazongas are the one and only qualification I’m seeking in a potential mate, however they are no less important than any other feature that one might find attractive in order to make initial contact. So if you’d rather acquiesce to the truth about the nature of my libido, as opposed to the pre-existing nonsense that says that I must pretend to not be who I am, well then what’ll ya have”????
Yet for some inexplicable reason, the over sensitive sexualizing of the female breast has become ground zero for striking back at years of patriarchal subjugation. It’s almost as if the gynic matriarchy has decided that “boobs as a no-ogle-zone” are proper retribution for centuries of male domination. Verboten mastoids as a means to strike back at men. And all it really accomplishes it to perpetuate the patriarchal, sexual double standard that most women hope to escape from in the first place.
But to make matters worse, women are often their own worst enemies where it concerns preserving the sexual double standard. Insofar as women “slut-shame” one another for having the audacity to indulge their sexual inclinations –as opposed to the bronze-age perception of chastity as a function of gender– many do the same with gals who posses overly endowed orbs. In what I can only assume to be sexual repression expressing itself as petty jealousy, a significant amount of women “boob-shame” their glandularly gifted sisters.
Even more hypocritical is when women make the distinction between nature and cosmetics. For when it comes to superficiality, it is only surgically enhanced spheroids that women denounce as something lewd. “Look at those fake tits on that bimbo, mine are natural” … as if one had to accomplish anything to grow them. Call me crazy, but I think that there is something to be said for a gal who plunks down a few grand and says “Gimme the big round ones from the top shelf.” As opposed to someone whose heredity makes them D-cup predisposed.
But still, boob shaming –especially where it concerns an augmented anterior– is all too common. Where it applies to cosmetic enhancements, the pseudo- feminist boob-hypocrisy is staggering. Is that perfume? or are we to believe that you actually smell like flowers blooming in Spring? Is that make-up? Or are we under the mistaken impression that your eyelids are naturally blue? Is that a perm? Or are we to believe that your hair began to curl on its own last week? Oh, and nice roots, Morticia.
So truth be told, I love tits. The bigger the better. In particular, I enjoy a globular pair of cartoon proportioned volleyballs acquired in an afternoon of cosmetic surgery. And although mams of extraordinary magnitude are neither a deal breaker, or a singular qualification for a woman to posses for me to be sexually attracted to them… it sure as hell helps. A great ass, and the cognitive ability to form a valid opinion are important too. But for an afternoon of frolic, the funbags’ll do.
Sorry, that’s what turns me on. I have no control over it. And if feminists don’t want to be viewed as “sexual objects”, well that’s just tough. We are all sexual beings. Perhaps we should stop telling one another what we are and are not allowed to find appealing. Maybe then the sexual double standard might begin to disappear.
Men of great integrity, like our founders, probably could have never seen this coming. It would have been counter-intuitive for them. It’s doubtful that the builders of our nation could have ever imagined so many journalists compromising their integrity and betraying those who put their trust in the press for their personal interests.
When the founders of our country wrote the First Amendment of the Constitution, they did so with the understanding that the Executive, Judiciary and Legislative branches of our government all needed to be watched over by an uninhibited free press. It was reasoned that with journalists scrutinizing the comings and goings in our political system, it would –among other things– guard against collusion amongst our elected officials, and protect legislators from themselves by applying consequences for giving into temptation. The philosophy was that with the threat of public exposure, the repercussions of corruption would outweigh the risk.
However with the advent of political lobbying on behalf of the media, the relationship between the free press, and our two major political parties has itself become collusive. Access to Washington has been exchanged for non neutrality. Both Republicans and Democrats now have editorialists feigning impartiality, and networks that act more like public relations firms, on their respective party’s payrolls.
But it gets even worse…
There was a time in the not too distant past when politics and entertainment were two totally separate media venues. There has –to some extent– always been an understanding that important socio/political issues needed to be regarded as such, and not be irresponsibly lumped in with Hollywood gossip and reality TV. But with our Twittering politicians showing themselves to be the socially autistic buffoons that they truly are, they’ve sadly obscured much of that distinction. Many of our legislators have become unwittingly comical caricatures of who they were trying to present themselves to be, and as such have exposed their jugulars to an opportunistic media. With up to the minute news available 24/7, we Americans are now barraged with political theater… be it comedy, tragedy, or in most cases, awe inspiring stupidity.
Which brings us to the present state of “News-ertainment”.
As a result of the collusive relationship between the nation’s top two parties and the networks that do their bidding, facts are often skewed — if not manufactured– in order to promote an agenda. This, of course, is not actual news reporting. But those doing the reporting, and their respective networks would have us believe otherwise. Rather than presenting unbiased facts with a professional, emotional detachment… News “personalities” now try to entertain with vapid, semi humorous, slanted observations, which in turn they hope will either amuse us or incite a vitriolic reaction. Cable news hosts rarely report on their own party’s verbal faux pas, platform inconsistencies, irrational hyperbole, or personal indiscretions nearly to the extent that they do their competition. The current trend is ratings via myopic indignation.
Unfortunately, we Americans have become desensitized to the corrupt alliance of government and media. We have become so cynical and jaded that we have come to accept that greed trumps integrity… so the original purpose of having a news media unencumbered by censorship has become bastardized by advertising revenue. Many of us feel powerless to do anything about it. Yet many more of us fail to recognize the problem at all.
However there has been an interesting dynamic introduced to the news media over the past few years which was born from the overt, and sometimes even purposely misleading bias of Cable News. Because many of those who were charged with protecting our political system via journalistic integrity have abandoned that task in favor of ego driven dogmatism and ratings inspired bombast, that job has been largely left unfilled. As such, those reporting on our political process are in need of third party scrutiny themselves.
The watchers are now being watched. The powerless have a voice.
Exposing political and news inaccuracies, comedians like John Stewart, and Stephen Colbert have stepped in to inject oxygen into the socio/political integrity vaccuum and expose the present state of cable news journalism for what it is… fraudulent editorializing worthy of ridicule. And unlike the talking meat puppets on cable news who fail miserably at their comical endeavors, Stewart and Colbert are as funny as they are astute. Although they both obviously have personal political leanings, unlike their counterparts who claim to be unbiased journalists, Stewart and Colbert are not shy to expose politicians from either party, or news anchors from any network for behaving like intellectually attenuated dolts.
Just as corrupt politicians once feared the news media…. the corrupt news media now fears Stewart and Colbert.
I was on the Washington Mall when Stewart and Colbert held their “Rally to Restore Sanity”. I witnessed roughly two hundred thousand people gather in front of stage near the Capitol building and extend all the way back to the Lincoln memorial. I was able to see firsthand how the void created by the news media was being filled by a uniquely American mechanism… reason given expression through satire.
…and while we’re watching, aand laughing at the expense of ignominious politicians, and less than credible journalists… let’s try to remember what gave birth to this medium in the first place.
I am still trying to ascertain the percentage of the population who truly believe their own lies, or whether they just want others to believe them.
My wife and I party a lot. Our lifestyle is such that we travel often, meet new and interesting people, and if the planets align so as to create a scenario conducive to consensual, extramarital copulation… that’s just what we do. We work hard when it’s time to work, and we party hard when it’s time to party. We are Happy, and in love… yet there are those who feel compelled to sit in sanctimonious judgment of us, and who have the gall to unfavorably scrutinize our marriage… even when their own lives are miserable. But this article is not about us, rather it’s about the hypocrisy of those who apply their “morality” universally.
Such is the purposeful deceptiveness regarding both the media’s role, and the public reaction to the drama surrounding Charlie Sheen. Before I begin, I am not a psychologist, and even if I was, I would realize that it’s impossible to offer a responsible diagnosis without the benefit of personal interactions. So I’ll say this to America: Charlie Sheen is an ACTOR, you imbeciles. The image you have of him, is the image he *wants* you to have of him. Could he be the rambling, psychotic nut we see in these cringe-worthy, albeit hilarious interviews? Maybe. But as the economy teeters on the brink, and the world faces threats, both real and imagined… the nation’s headlines this past week have been dominated by an actor with tiger blood, Adonis DNA, an over active libido. The actor Charlie Sheen is partying, banging porn stars, and like a nation of Gladys Kravitz’s we watch with phony concern/outrage because most of our lives suck.
It usually comes down to petty jealousy, and people resenting Sheen for living a life that few have the guts to. Granted, while Sheen’s lifestyle may be excessive, when it comes down to it, most of the general population amble through their day having had their thought process steered so as to compromise their inclinations in favor of becoming intellectually attenuated, unimaginative, unoriginal automatons. We make rationalizations as to the why the restrictions we put on out libidos make us virtuous, and we lie to ourselves about the foundations of what we claim to believe.
There are very few things as abhorrent as when people feign morality in order to enact a self righteous indignation, or a burning desire to impose their will on others. The Internet is replete with sanctimonious sex-o-phobes who offer ‘payers”, and unsolicited advice for Sheen, as if any of these dim witted mouth breathers have the synaptic circuitry to make the attempt beyond regurgitating religious platitudes, and self-help cliché’s. Very few of those pretending to care about whether or not Charlie Sheen emerges healthy (or at all), are sincere. Like ex smokers who freak out whenever someone near them lights up… Most are using Sheen’s celebrity to let the world know that since they rarely, if ever orgasm… or enjoy themselves beyond the vicarious thrill of listening to their cerebrally stifled offspring stammer through the trivialities of their school day… he shouldn’t be allowed to either.
Enter the pious, preachy and puerile putz hater, Andrea Peyser, who seems to be personally offended by Sheen’s hedonistic indulgences. As a writer for the New York Post– which is to News what Jersey Shore is to Reality — Peyser, makes a significant living of placating the lowest intellectual denominator… or as the Post calls them, their readership. By writing about whatever politically correct, knee jerk reaction she believes the cubicle dwelling, Walmart shopping public will most likely respond favorably to on any given subject… she utilizes her considerable lack of comprehension, integrity and research skills to hammer out fifteen hundred words of insipid, hackneyed drivel several times per week. Regarding Sheen, her recent article about him offered all the insight of a morbidly obese Topeka housewife whose husband peruses porn sites who prides himself on his flatulence… Men are inherently indiscriminant, and should be chastised at every opportunity… Especially Charlie Sheen!
Never does it ever enter into the nearly empty craniums of those who denounce Charlie Sheen’s behavior that when it comes right down to it… this is *his* life. Perhaps they should concern themselves with their own dreary existence, and while they’re at it, learn the names of their State Senators. Are they really concerned with his kids? If they are, what about the children in Africa who are being tortured and murdered on a regular basis? Are Sheen’s kids really so much worse off than most of the little tax burdens being dragged through our suburban malls by their feeble-minded, irrational, affection starved parents? Does anyone believe that any of the women in his life are actually victims? Are people truly concerned, and/or outraged… or is it more likely that misery loves company?
At least you can say that Charlie Sheen isn’t *that* kind of hypocrite.