Tops off to talking

about breasts

WARNING: The following article contains harsh language that may be considered offensive by some readers.

by NANCY FRIEDLAND The Varsity

have a weakness for fine under I wear. As unfortunate as this may seem, itis not as costly and uncon- scionable as my pathetic penchant for nice brassieres.

I say pathetic for two reasons. For one, the constant and insatiable desire to pos- sess more and more of these useful, albeit frivolous, fashion items is the direct re- sultof misogynist propaganda that infil- trates every media image which, in turn, is part of the huge conspiracy conducted to enslave women by forcing them to

spend an inordinate proportion of their _

hard-earned-60-percent-of-what-men- make to achieve an artificial, impossi- ble, male- projected fantasy ideal. That, ny friends, is pathetic.

Also, the whole process of procurement isdegrading. Lingerie salesladies (and I do mean Jadies) are cruel.

So why do I subject myself to this abuse? Variety, I say. I like to choose how I want 0 display my breasts, for whom and when. Sometimes I like my breasts to be com- fortable, sometimes I want them to look tice. Sometimes I want them to be part of hy sexuality, sometimes I don’t.

And this is apparently where the problem *s. According to the cops, my breasts e sexual all the time. Weird, I say, “cause they aren’t sexual all the time.

‘Youwant something that will slim you wn, Lift youup and bring you out. Up and tky!”? she says, trying to copa feel.

fhe thing is, sexual or not, the lingerie hleslady holds a great deal of power in “thot little hands.

Why are breasts so powerful? Why are there more nouns and adjectives devoted to these two mounds of flesh on a wom- an’s body than there are names for differ- ent kinds of cheese? Why did one wom- an’s choice to bare her breasts to the wind ona hotsummer’s day last year create a big- ger media cufuffel than other, clearly more’ important, feminist issues?

I was fortunate enough to be part of the joyous festivities in both Guelph and Waterloo on the weekend anniversary of Gwen Jacob’s arrest. In these two small Ontario cities, breasts are one hot topic. Hotter than Melrose Place. Hotter than Drew Barrymore naked in a field. Hotter than all four members of Moxy Fruvous skewered over a slow-roasting flamepit beyond the gates of hell.

The Guelph uprising went above and be- low the call of feminism. Men, scumpigs emerging from the dark underbelly of society, and precious few women joined hands in the sacred name of nakedness. Revolting against the strong arm of the law, these kindly folk took time from their busy lives to, as one man so elo- quently put it, ‘‘see some hooters.”’

In Waterloo the rally was larger but no less perverted. The issue, which I think had something to do with unjust laws regarding a woman’ s right to take off her shirt when and where she sees fit got lost between the Handycams and some wea- sel sporting a t-shirt that said ‘‘More than a mouthful is a waste.’’ I suppose he was protecting women’s rights to have small breasts -- thanks, asshole.

In spite of the copious coverage the me- dia devoted to this whole tit affair, there

is a huge gaping void where critical

analysis could have been. Unfortunately, rally organizers fell into the abyss of boneheadedness as well.

To be fair, for many women I met it was their first demonstration. They were schmoozled and bamboozled by the paparazzi into thinking that their voices could be heard above the pornographic din. However, with one step back they might have realized that, like, maybe they should have made a connection be- tween sexual assault and the

: criminalization and sexualization of the female breast? They could have made links between the very tangible in- justice of Gwen Jacobs conviction and other more pressing, less vis- ible issues.

It’s what you calla double-edged sword. We want to have complete and absolute control over our own bodies, but we also want laws that will protect us. So we create laws in the hopes that they will strengthen our power in the courtroom. But these laws are then used against us on the streets.

The OPP’s Project Pornography, for ex- ample, should target the straight male sickness that is everywhere and danger- ous to women. Instead, they have chosen to charge Glad Day Bookshop for selling a lesbian magazine with relatively be- nign photos of women fucking each other.

Why wasn’t the perverted use of our ob- scenity laws addressed by those champi- oning the right for Gwen Jacob to take off her shirt? :

This lack of connection between issues is (Yikes. If this is third wave feminism then I ain't goin’ to no beach).

Scumpigs and possessed lingerie salesladies aside, I think it is good that people are talking about breasts. Ml