Site Meter


Hello there.

It's nice to meet you.

I'm Jessica.

Once upon a time, I wrote a lot on this blog.

Now, not so much. But I haven't quite gotten around to totally delete it from the internet just yet. So, here it remains, collecting dust. 

So if you've ended up here, hello and welcome. I still tweet from time to time and pin (see above) and if you want to see what I do, click on the giant box below that says VIEW MY WORK.

TTFN, y'all. 


Entries in Marilyn Monroe (3)


Real boobs have rights too

What do you think of the group of derisive comments about young Miss Upton's boobs on the cover of SI this month? I don't usually pay attention to *news* on breasts (really, guys) but the jeering at her 'flapjacks', as one particularly trolly commenter coined her ample and natural-looking bosom, had me thinking about real boobs and why they get such a bad wrap for being flat or floppy or saggy or whatever. (I'll leave it to the others to comment about her relatablity, if her boobs are/are not fake or whatever and the other angles of this over-exposed story.)



I mean, it's just a matter of physics that large pockets of fat that hang suspended from one's chest will eventually end up headed south just like the rest of our physique will without surgical intervention. 

Have you seen a set of MOOBS (and boy are they on the rise) with nipples pointing skywards? Me neither. Maybe that's why all the très classy dudes at the beach in the summer swim in XXXL tees. Sexy. I definitely can't see your man boobs straight through that soaked, transparent white t-shirt. 

Interestingly, as the media storm around Upton's breasts was consuming the whole of the US last week, I happened upon some images of Marilyn Monroe disrobed more than usual in a magazine (they're from a new book of her photos).

Lo and behold, she has refreshingly natural breasts that do that flatten and spread thing that I think most sizeable boobs do.

Do you think she would have had implants had she been around today? Yes, a totally frivolous speculation, I know, but I do wonder if she would have bowed to the pressure to be even more perfect and have even more surgery than she already did.

I sort of fret for younger people, especially the ones with ready access to internet pornography, lads mags and reality slebs 24/7... I have to imagine that their idea of what boobs should look like is pretty unsettling. 

Anyway, the real question I have about Upton's cover is how they convinced her that the microscopic piece of fruit leather covering her hooha is a bikini bottom... have you ever seen such a teeny bikini? Maybe the shoot budget ran short so they had to make do with what was left at craft service?

They surely had to Photoshop out some of her anatomy in that too... like, say, her labia. Entirely. Sheesh.

So, the take away:

Boobs. Sometimes they're real. Sometimes they're not. Gravity affects them too, even those not featured on National Geographic.

Do you think real boobs get a little bit mistreated when they're in the public eye vs. implants (at least the well-done ones), at least from a male crowd? Just a question... putting it out there based local intel (eavesdropping) and online browsing I've been doing. 

In other news, I leave for India on Friday and will be there for Holi. That's the festival where they throw colored powder at each other all day. How cool is that?

And I've got a weekend-long Indian wedding to attend that'll ping pong me all around Mumbai, including a Mehendi session, visits to a tailor to have some saris and petticoats fitted (as it's Indian Formal), salon time for threading and other miscellaneous things. Cannot. Wait.


1, 2