|
|
|
UNDERWIRE OPINION
/ EDITORIAL
MYCROFT Every
now and then the question of whether we demonstrate
"hostility towards women" by looking at their
pictures arises in the Forum. It's always worth a
twenty-replies thread, which means it is a fit
question for more than the ones who dare to ask.
Apparently quite a few of us feel guilty when
browsing through the BEArchive, and accept strange
concepts of restriction and even punishment for
it. Hostility...
Some of us, no doubt, are generally
hostile towards women, just as some of us
are racist or un-American, or use handles
like "bossman". No group sharing one
interest is totally homogenous. I am not
talking about that sort of people. To look
at a picture of a model and be attracted
or aroused by it is as natural as can be.
It is by itself not hostile towards the
model who consented to show her body this
way. The accusation of "hostility" in most
cases is induced by jealousy, as in "Why
don't you look at me instead?" That may be
a partner problem, maybe even a severe
one, but the reasons for problems like
that lie in the partnership, not in
general hostility. There are better,
older, more convincing reasons for the
so-called tit-fetish... in fact the
devotion to the developed female bust goes
back to times long before male
predomination, which started as a revolt
against female predomination about 6,000
years ago, and survived it. Goddesses...
I hope it won't be a shock for too many of
you, but statistically speaking, over the
past several aeons the utmost deity was
female. Roughly speaking, we've been rural
beings for 99.8 % of our history. Most of
the co-inhabitants of the planet still
are. Herders and farmers depend on Mother
Earth's donations. It's Mother Earth all
over the planet. There is one known case
of a male Earth God (Egyptian, due to the
river Nile); all the others are female.
Farmers know that all they do is put semen
into the earth, and she brings forth the
fruits. Seduction, not rape, is the better
tactic; devotion to the female form is
logical. And sex is always
present. Peasants mate with
Mother Earth, so to say. And they want her
to be a fertile woman, not a
cocaine-sniffing, sterile model girl;
broad-hipped, stable, with big teats, able
to nurse all her children. There are other
goddesses - other aspects of the female
form, like Aphrodite the untouchable and
all the Venus mixed-forms - but Big Mother
has her place even in the
male-predominated pantheons of the last
6,000 years. As Mother Mary she even
invaded the Christian male-only Trinity;
we wanted her so much that even the
Catholic Church of the 11th century had to
let her in. Urban civilization's varnish
is only a few microns thick. Mother
Goddesses...
tend to be overprotective and possessive.
That - for their sons - is a cause for
rebellion against them. And their influence
on the sons is generally disliked by women
not in their position. (Small scale: there
must be a million anecdotes about wives
and mothers-in-law, and they are all
true.) That is one reason for female
bitterness towards the well-developed
breastwise. If, as is happening today, the
revolt of the overprotected sons and that
female bitterness combine, we have bulimia
cases like Kate Moss or Lady Diana Spencer
being idolized. The idolization being
negative (- NO mother, at all costs),
there's nothing sexy about those poor
creatures. So where does our sex drive
lead us to? Aha... But, in the place of
the idol being occupied by Lady Di,
devotion to a more developed concept of
femininity is heresy, or sin. So
collecting stamps or glasses with Lady
Di's portrait is OK, while collecting
images of SaRenna Lee is not. This is only
true as long as you, yes, you believe it.
I don't. The
"Venus von Willendorf", 25,000 BC. Her
obesity was a must under Ice Age
conditions; body fat was isolation against
the cold. Breasts of such dimensions were
not; they were idolized. Capsian
wall frescos in Cogul/Spain. |
