B is for Breasts

It would be nice to take a break from all my highly controlled male rage against the industrial-feminist-divorce-machine - To focus on a more lighthearted topic that most all men can appreciate.

What comes immediately to mind is the female mammary glands.

Breasts: we all love them, women have them, and Albert is practically a breast himself. *

Oh, sure long legs are nice, a well-rounded tushie is a wonderful thing, but a glimpse of cleavage, or a peak of an aureola, and a man's day has moved to a different level. Women know it too.
Leaf through any women's magazines like Cosmo, or Elle... The cover almost inevitably has cleavage, and inside... ...naked women abound, and they aren't exposing their behinds, -it's all about their chests. Victoria's Secret (a subsidiary of Limited Brands, Inc) runs over 1,000 stores all dedicated to propping up, pushing around and enhancing the bosom. The business isn't been terrible - Limited Brands had revenue of 3.3 Billion in the quarter ending January. Total sales of women's underwear ran about 8.2 Billion in 2003. In comparison, a more male-oriented underwear company, Fruit of the Loom, lacking a mammary focus, dove into bankruptcy, and was rescued by wise old Warren Buffet. I guess he thought that men needed some support too. Well, it's a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway now - (We Are Borg). Total domestic production of men's underwear in the US runs about 1.3 Billion/year and total wholesale men's underwear revenue probably runs 3.9 Billion - roughly half what is spent on women's stuff. Clearly something is much more interesting about women's tops, both financially, and in terms of exposure.

But perhaps that is just the problem - perhaps I am comparing a women's product that they invest in for vanity and sex-appeal, with a men's product that no one cares about. But how to find something appropriate that men buy to show off that isn't coopted by women. Luxury watch research isn't broken down by sex, and muscle cars seem to have as many women as men behind the wheel. I guess I have to face the facts, there isn't anything quite like the female breast in terms of attention lavished on a body part, or sexual differentiation.

I also haven't mentioned the cleavage enhancing blouse or dress, which is part of the equation too. Much of women's clothing is designed to enhance the male visual enjoyment of the breast, but actually getting caught looking can get you slapped - this is very unfair - isn't that like posting an all-you-can-eat sign in front of the restaurant, and placing bear-traps just inside the door?

And what is with the way some women have of giving the evil eye to those of 'the wrong class' who check them out? -If you dress like a billboard, you can't complain when people stop to read the sign.

Still, men CAN and sometimes DO have breasts. However whereas breasts on women is a good thing, breasts on men is usually a scary thing. A man was actually arrested not long ago for exposing his 'breasts' in Cincinnatti. One wonders whether the 'Topfree Equal Rights Association' (TERA) will rally to his defense. Browsing the TERA site, one begins to appreciate the bra, and the support it provides. The unsupported fatty chest protruberance can be an unattractive thing. Perhaps Chilly in Cincinnatti just needed some male support, like a 'bro' or manziere, and this would have helped him avoid involvement with the local constabulary.

But mostly Men don't have boobs, or anything comparable to dress up. Clearly there is a breast-gap here in the sexual war, a gap that men need to close somehow.
Push-up jocks? butt-enhancers? WE HAVE THE TECHNOLOGY!

Unfortunately, or fortunately, most men just aren't that concerned about their looks.

And here's hoping we stay that way, sort of ugly, mostly breastless, and proud of it.

-M

* Silly OTT reference to 'The Birdcage'.