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 troll-y commentator 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.

Interestingly, as the media drums up a tempest in a tea cup around Upton's breasts, 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 sizeable boobs do.

marilyn monroe topless_thompson hotel magazine.jpg

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.

You have to wonder if the only boobs the men commenting have seen are gravity defying fake ones if they are so repulsed at Upton's. Let's also take a minute to acknowledge the context of objectification in which the contemptuous proclamations about this young woman's boobs are happening too. It's like a cattle market where all the cows had bulbous, swingy utter implants until now and the buyers can't handle the fleshy, dangly nature of the natural ones. 

I fret for younger people and the plastic, pornographied lens through which so many of them exclusively view of the world and women. Their ideas of what boobs should look like is pretty unsettling and probably telling of what they think a woman's other parts should look like. I don't wonder that some young men might pass out from the sight of a real vulva with actual pubic hair on it. 

Anyway, the real question I have about Upton's cover is how they convinced her that the microscopic piece of fruit leather covering her mons pubis. 

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

So, the take away:

Boobs. Sometimes they're real. Sometimes they're not. Gravity affects them too, even those not featured on National Geographic. Boys, get over it. You might think boobs are there solely for your viewing pleasure, and magazines like SI do their best to affirm that sense of entitlement for you, but they're not. And I'm pretty sure Kate Upton isn't crying herself to sleep on her private jet over your opinion about how hers look.

1, 2