Not all women are dumb, but all men are men

The debate
The boob liberty parade started long controversies that gathered around the debating table modern philosophers, real doctors or just PhDs, religious people, ethic and moral experts, outraged feminists and men with an obvious Freudian fixation.

Although regarded by many as a sign of promiscuity and libertinage, topless sunbathing was eased into the modern culture by a misunderstood feminism brought to extremes. Some advance even the idea that is good for your breasts to be tanned. That would be true if overall tanning would be beneficial for the health. However, medical researches claim that from the moment when topless tanning became popular breast cancer  rate increased.

I am not here to point fingers or to make the apologetic of naked bodies, as we all know what a convoluted and controversial concept that is. Some say that even if the 60’s frenzy is gone, the perils of this earth-shattering period are still present and leading to a mass fury of boob flashing. Most topless addicts claim that partial or total nudity is a symbol of a newly gained freedom, while more prude and cautious critics state that, in fact, the loss of shame equals to loss of civilization. We started naked some 60,000,000 years ago and we end up naked. What is the benefit of development and civilization if we return to the rudiments of our censorless behavior?

Reductio ad ridiculum
Is lack of "shame" a sign of civilization? Moreover, should nudity coincide with being ashamed? What did we gain and what did we lose in the process of evolution? Is covering up a sign of modernism? Are clothes or their lack off a standard of civilization? Well, for starters, the lack of clothes is not a symbol of civilization, and aborigines in various corners of the world stand as living proof. Similarly, the excessive cloth covering is also not a representation of the level of civilization, modernity or emancipation (just consider the Taliban women).

The question that rises is whether shame should be identified with nudity or not. Shame is an emotion, and affect and a condition which is usually defined as a painful feeling arising from the consciousness of something dishonorable, improper, ridiculous done by oneself or another. Now, if we think of nudity as dishonorable, improper or ridiculous, obviously we will feel ashamed.

The next question in our train of thought is whether nudity is ridiculous or not. What is being ridiculous? In rhetorics and argumentation there is a logical fallacy called reductio ad ridiculum (appeal to ridicule), which presents the interlocutor's argument in a way that appears ridiculous, or laughable about. Example: as the theory of evolution is true, that would mean that all the apes wouldn't be here any more, since they all would have evolved into humans!

Etymologically speaking, the word ridiculous, from Latin ridiculosis (laughter) came to mean by extension, pathetic, scornful and inspiring pity. Now, is human nudity pathetic? Are our new born babies pathetic and ridiculous? Maybe they are but we are too blinded by oxytocin to see that. It should be no exception. We cannot have double standards and appreciate only the infant nudity while rejecting the adult one. A couple of extra pubic hairs shouldn’t make nudity less attractive, au contraire. It all comes down to the value scale of a certain society who gives more importance to nudity than to flogging or beheading.

Those inglorious flogging basterds
You might wonder how can I mix nudity and flogging in the same context. Very simple, really. A society that insinuates that nudity is a crime, will end up flogging an individual for doing so, not thinking that the collective shame of performing a dishonorable deed (such as flogging) of the society itself when expressing a level of civilization, by physically punishing an individual, should be higher than seeing the nudity of that individual. That was a long phrase and I hardly made sense of it. Logically and ethically makes no sense, if we break down the definition of shame vs nudity. The flogging itself diminishes the level of civilization and increases the shame given by the lack off or banning of nudity.

Breast Appreciation Academy
Let me get your attention back, so let’s revert to breasts. The breast itself is not a nice organ to look at, if dissected: it is composed 90% of fat, tissue and some mammary glands. Looked at from the outside, it is a stretch of skin over the same fat and mammary glands, that has a dark, brown, pink areola, with protruding or inverted nipples, pear, melon, cantaloupe, apple or other fruits shaped. Some innovative genuine breast lovers, who seemed to have studied at Breast Appreciation Academy, forward these genial alternative names for the same organs: assets, baps, bazookas, boobs, boobies, cans, hooters, jugs, knockers, rack, tits, titties, bee stings, mosquito bites, puppies, honkers, twins, jublies, gunzagas, milk depot, airbags, bangers, norks, fun bags, tata tots, twin peaks, fun bubbles, boulders, sin cushions, bouncers, bongos, balloons, snuggle pups, bumpers, yummies, udders and my favourite of them all, chesticles.

We cannot go on with our peroration about topless without mentioning that the anatomical functionality of breasts is to mainly feed the offspring. However, what feminists seem to forget is that in order to reach to the offspring feeding part, a woman needs to procreate and she would procreate if she previously had sex, and she would get to have sex if she aroused the male by flashing her boobs. Therefore, we might logically conclude that breasts’ anatomical primary and foremost role is to arouse the man, so the female can insure the perpetuation of the species. Jokingly or not, this assessment is nevertheless true. There are tons of books written about the sociology of breasts, and men’s obsession of this particular body organ. Some women, including me, felt very offended when men declared turned off by the presence of nutrition (milk that is) within the breasts and jumped right up, declaring very Simone de Beauvoirish that breasts, you misogynists and chauvinist pigs, are made to feed our infants and not used to make fast car advertorials and commercials.

"I have a dream"
OK, here is the thing; if an organ whose primordial role is to produce milk manages to sell fast cars and kitchen furniture to men, so much for the better. The overall economy will get better, and us as individuals will live in more decent conditions. Use it for your benefit. Who knows, maybe in time, naked breasts pictures will prevent some economic crisis or even bring world peace. A study actually claimed (who pays for this kind of studies, goddamn it!) that “ten minute ogle at women’s breasts is as healthy as half an hour in the gym”.  Imagine a world full of happy and relaxed men, with no desire to start wars or invade territories, or who go to work to support their wives extravagant standards of living, while driving the car they bought after they stared at a fast-car-naked-boob-subliminal message ad. We all know what popular wisdom is saying “not all women are dumb, but all men are men”.